Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · Interpretation of Statutes

A statute penalises 'any person who, without lawful authority, removes sand from a river bed'. A company removes sand from a dry canal bed that was formerly a river course but is now officially recorded as a canal. The department argues the purpose of the Act, protecting water bodies, justifies including the canal. The statutory language is clear and unambiguous and does not mention canals. What is the correct approach under the principles of interpretation?

The canal bed is not covered. Where the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, the literal rule requires giving them their plain meaning, and penal provisions are construed strictly. The mischief or golden rule cannot be used to extend an offence to something the text does not mention.

  1. AApply the mischief rule to extend the penalty to canals despite clear words
  2. BApply the literal rule: where words are clear and unambiguous they are given their plain meaning, and penal provisions are strictly construed, so the canal bed is not coveredCorrect
  3. CApply the golden rule to widen the offence to canals as a matter of public policy
  4. DTreat the provision as void because it does not define 'river bed'

Explanation

When words are plain and unambiguous, courts apply the literal rule and do not extend them by reference to purpose. Penal provisions are strictly construed, so conduct outside the wording is not an offence. The mischief and golden rules are used for ambiguity or absurdity, which is absent here.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Interpretation of Statutes shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Interpretation of StatutesFree diagnostic mock

More Interpretation of Statutes questions