Hamelin Lecture by Professor Andrew Burrows

Introduction

• Event hosted by the Hamelin Trustees.
• Chaired by Baroness David Richmond, President of the Supreme Court.
• Introduction by Bodie Hay, former deliverer of the 47th Hamelin Lecture.
• Professor Andrew Burrows: Professor of Law of England at Oxford, former law commissioner and judge.

Significance of the Lecture

• Focus on statutes and statutory interpretation.
• Importance of statutes in modern law, often neglected in legal academia.
• Professor Burrows aims to address this gap in three lectures covering interpretation, interaction, and improvement of statute law.

Overview of Statutory Interpretation

The Modern Approach

• Shift from literal to contextual and purposive interpretation.
• Contextual approach to understand the purpose of a statute.
• Important cases: IRC v. McGuckian, Crown v. Secretary of State for Health, Ex Parte Quantavale.

Points on Modern Approach

1. Subsuming Old Canons: Literalism replaced by context and purpose focus.
2. Legislative History Admissible: Includes Law Commission reports, white papers, and Hansard debates (Pepper v. Hart).
3. Rectifying Construction: Courts can amend statute wording when a drafting mistake is clear (Inco Europe case).

Issues with Parliamentary Intention

• Objective vs Subjective Intention: Courts impute a reasonable intention to Parliament.
• Critique of Legislative Intention: Some argue it is a legal fiction.

Always Speaking Doctrine

• Statutes may apply to unforeseen circumstances.
• Cases Demonstrating Doctrine
  • Barker v. Wilson: Microfilm as "bankers books."
  • Royal College of Nursing v. DHSS: Modern abortion techniques.
  • Crown v. Ireland: Psychiatric illness as bodily harm.
  • Yemshaw v. Hounslow: Non-physical domestic violence.
  • Owens v. Owens: Divorce and modern standards.

Comparative Legal Interpretation

Contractual vs Statutory Interpretation

• Both have shifted from literal to purposive/contextual methods.
• Differences: Role of intention, rectifying mistakes, always speaking doctrine.

Statutory vs Common Law Precedents

• Both are always speaking and not focused on the intention of the maker.
• Statutory interpretation constrained by statutory words, unlike common law.

Conclusion

• Need for greater academic focus on statutory interpretation.
• Modern approach focuses on current meaning in context, avoiding parliamentary intention fiction.
• Distinct differences in interpreting statutes, contracts, and common law precedents.