AS Level Law Assignment 13 - Statutory Interpretation

SOURCE A

A knife was displayed in a shop window with a price ticket attached to it. The shopkeeper was charged with offering for sale a flick knife contrary to s1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 which provides:

‘Any person who manufactures, sells or hires or offers for sale or hire, or lends or gives to any other person –

(a) any knife which has a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife, sometimes known as a ‘flick knife' … shall be guilty of an offence.

The court had to decide whether the shopkeeper was guilty of ‘offering the knife for sale' (he had not actually sold any). Applying the literal rule to the facts of the case, the court held that the display of the knife in the shop window was not ‘offering for sale' – merely an invitation to treat. Hence the shopkeeper was not guilty of the offence.

Fisher v Bell [1960] 1 QB 394

SOURCE B

‘Some may say … that judges should not pay attention to what is said in Parliament. They should grope around in the dark for the meaning of an Act without switching on the light. I do not agree with this view.'

Adapted from the judgment of Lord Denning in Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264

 

Answer ALL parts

(a) Source B refers to Lord Denning's dissatisfaction with the ban on the use of the external aid Hansard prior to 1993. Explain what Hansard is and the circumstances in which courts may make a reference to it.  [15]

(b) Read Source A lines 4 – 9. Using your knowledge of statutory interpretation consider whether any of the following ‘sells or hires or offers for sale or hire or gives to any other person – any knife which has a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife' and therefore commits an offence under s1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959:

(i) Jane, a youth worker, confiscates a flick knife from a member of her youth club and gives it to her supervisor.

(ii) Tony, an antique dealer, displays an old military knife with a spring opening device in his shop window with a price ticket attached to it.

(iii) Fola buys a ‘job lot' box of kitchen utensils from a car boot sale. Without examining the contents closely she donates the box to a charity shop. The box is found to contain a flick knife. [15]

(c) With reference to Source A and other cases consider the problems that can be created by using the literal rule of interpretation and any advantages to be gained by using the modern purposive approach. [30]

[Total: 60 marks]

(2002 Specimen Paper)

 

SOURCE

The case involves an appeal by way of case stated against conviction of an offence under s3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920, that, 'being in the vicinity of a prohibited place', namely Markham Royal Air Force Station, the defendant obstructed a member of Her Majesty's Forces engaged in security duty.

LORD PARKER CJ: s3 of the Official Secrets Act provides that:

'No person in the vicinity of any prohibited place shall obstruct, knowingly mislead or otherwise interfere with or impede [an] officer of police, or any member of His Majesty's forces engaged on guard, sentry, patrol or other similar duty in relation to the prohibited place... and if any person ... fails to comply ... he shall be guilty of [an offence].'

... the appellant had obtained access to, and was on Markham Royal Airforce Station, and it was found ... obstructed a member of [the] Royal Air Force.

The sole point here, and a point ably argued by the appellant, is that if he was on the station he could not be in the vicinity of the station, and that it is an offence under this section ... only while the accused is in the vicinity of the station. The appellant has referred to the natural meaning of 'vicinity', which I take to be quite generally the state of being near in space, and he says that it is inapt and does not cover being in fact on the station in the present case. For my part I am quite satisfied that this is a case where no violence is done to the language by reading the words 'in the vicinity of' as meaning 'in or in the vicinity of'. Here is a section in an Act of Parliament designed to prevent interference with, amongst others, members of Her Majesty's forces who are engaged on guard, sentry patrol or other similar duty in relation to a prohibited place such as this station. It would be extraordinary, and I venture to think that it would be absurd, if an indictable offence was thereby created when the obstruction took place outside the precincts of the station, albeit in the vicinity, and no offence at all was created if the obstruction occurred on the station itself. There may be of course many contexts in which 'vicinity' must be confined to its literal meaning of 'being near in space', but under this section, I am quite clear that the context demands that the words should be construed in the way which I have stated. I would dismiss this appeal.

Adapted from the judgment in Adler v George [1964]

 

Answer all parts.

(a) Lord Parker in his judgment is using the golden rule to interpret the words 'in the vicinity of' in s3 of the Official Secrets Act. Using the Source and other cases, describe and explain the use of the golden rule. [24]

(b) Lord Parker refers to the 'natural meaning' in the Source and the 'literal meaning' in the Source. These are references to the literal rule of statutory interpretation. Using the Source and other cases, explain the literal rule and discuss the problems that can be created by using it. [36]

(c) In the extract from s3 of the Official Secrets Act in the Source there is a reference to 'guard, sentry, patrol or other similar duty'. Identify what rule of language would be appropriate to this list and describe how it operates in practice. [12]

(d) In the following situations use the Source and your knowledge of the rules of statutory interpretation, to explain whether or not the defendant would be guilty of the offence under s3 Official Secrets Act 1920 as a person who: 'in the vicinity of any prohibited place shall obstruct, knowingly mislead or otherwise interfere with or impede [an] officer of police, or any member of His Majesty's forces engaged on guard, sentry, patrol or other similar duty in relation to the prohibited place'.

(i) Gerald, an Eco-warrior and anti-nuclear protester, digs a tunnel immediately underneath a nuclear base and refuses to come out when sentries request that he should.

(ii) As a result of being blown off course by a fierce wind, Henry, an amateur parachutist, lands on the roof of a building on a nuclear base. Frightened by the armed sentries, who race towards the building, he tries to hide from them.

(iii) lsabella, a foreign spy, lures a soldier away from the gate at a nuclear installation so that her colleagues can get unseen onto the base. Unknown to lsabella the soldier is actually a cook who has just delivered supper to the sentries on guard. [18]

(June 2001)

 

The case of R v Maginnis [1987] 1 All ER 907, HL, was concerned with the Interpretation of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, by s. 5(3) of which:

"...it is an offence for a person to have a controlled drug in his possession, whether lawfully or not, with intent to supply to another ... "
The police had found a package of cannabis resin in the defendant's car. He said that the package was not his but had been left in his car by a friend for collection later. The defendant was convicted and appealed...

[In the House of Lords] their Lordships held that the defendant was guilty of the offence because a person in unlawful possession of a controlled drug left with him for safekeeping by another person had the necessary 'intent to supply it to another' (even though the supply was not being made from the provider's own resources) if his intention was to return it to the other person and for that other person's purposes.

The majority of their Lordships purported to apply the ordinary, natural meaning of the word 'supply'. Lord Goff of Chieveley, however, dissented on that very point and referred to definitions of the word given in The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. In his view the word 'supply' was not apt to describe a transaction in which A handed back to B goods which B had previously left with A. Thus the cloakroom attendant, left luggage officer, warehouseman and shoe repairer do not, in ordinary parlance, 'supply' their customers. Lord Goff was further of the opinion that the particular offence in question was aimed at drug 'pushers'; the defendant was not a pusher' and should have been charged with the lesser offence of 'unlawful possession'. If, he said, persons in the position of the defendant were to be convicted of 'possession with intent to supply', it was up to Parliament and not the courts to enlarge the definition of 'supply'.

(Adapted from, The English Legal Process, Terence lngman, Blackstones)

 

(a) Refer to the Source. Using examples, explain the literal rule of statutory interpretation. [40]

(b) Identify and explain other approaches to statutory interpretation that could have been used by the judges in Maginnis. [40]

(c) Using your knowledge of the rules of statutory interpretation, consider whether each of the following has committed an offence by having '... a controlled drug in his possession, whether lawfully or not, with the intent to supply it to another... ' [lines 3-4 of the source]:

(i) George has cannabis in his pocket which he intends to smoke with his girlfriend Hannah.

(ii) Simon, a doctor, has taken controlled drugs from his patient Tim, an addict, and is planning to deliver them to the police.

(iii) Annie is Bill's mother. One day Bill asks if she will keep a sealed brown paper package for him while he goes out. The package contains a kilogram of heroin. [40]

Total : 120 marks

(2000 Sample Paper)

 

Guidance

My students should see me in the Law workshop or email me if help is required with this assignment.

 

Set: 

Due: