1. Rules of Language
   1. Ejusdem generis
      1. Of the same kind
      2. List of words followed by 'any other' of a similar type (a general phrase)
      3. 'Dogs, cats and other animals' means ONLY domestic pets, not wild animals
      4. Re Stockport Ragged, Industrial and Reformatory Schools (1898)
      5. 'cathedral, collegiate, chapter and other schools' means ONLY church schools
   2. Expressio Unius est exclusio alterius
      1. The mention of one thing excludes others
      2. A CLOSED list
      3. E.g. 'Coffee, tea, hot chocolate' so malt does not apply
      4. Tempest v Kilner (1846)
         1. 'goods, wares and merchandise'
         2. Therefore does NOT apply to stocks & shares
   3. Noscitur a sociis
      1. A word is known by the company it keeps
      2. Wild Animals Act 2011
      3. Inland Revenue Comissioners v Frere (1965)
         1. 'interest, annuities or other annual interest'
         2. > 'other annual interest'
         3. Therefore ONLY applies to annual interest
2. Interpretive Aids
   1. Intrinsic
      1. Long & Short Title of Act
      2. Preamble
      3. Marginal notes & Headings
      4. Schedules
      5. Interpretation section (more recent)
         1. Theft Act 1968
         2. 'a weapon of offence'
         3. 'any article made or adapted for use for causing injury'
      6. Advantages
         1. More respectful of Parliament
         2. Quick & easy
      7. Disadvantages
         1. Could still have ambiguous definitions
         2. May not be enough
   2. Extrinsic
      1. Dictionaries
      2. Previous Acts of Parliament
      3. Case Law
      4. Hansard
      5. Law reform reports
      6. International traties
      7. Explanatory Notes (after 1999)
      8. Advantages
         1. Dictionary is quick & easy
         2. Hansard can clarify Parlieament's intentions
      9. Disadvantages
         1. Using Hansard may not represent entire opinion of Parliament
         2. Ministers may be unclear
         3. Danger of undermining authority of Parliament
3. Purposive Approach
   1. Modern day version of the mischief rule
   2. Jones v Tower Boot Co. (1997)
      1. Court of Appeal decided that racial harassment by fellow workers happened 'in the course of employment' making the employer liable
   3. Advantages
      1. Makes sense to look at 'whole purpose' of the Act
      2. Gives effect to Parliament's intentions
      3. Allows judges to use common sense
      4. Allows judges to consider social and technological changes
   4. Disadvantages
      1. Finding the intention of Parliament can be difficult
      2. Undemocratic - gives too much power to unelected judges
      3. May cause confusion
4. Mischief Rule
   1. Judges look for the 'mischief' that the law was attempting to prevent and modify it to make sure that intention is achieved
   2. 4 Factors to Consider
      1. What was the common law before the Act was passed?
      2. What was the mischief that the Act was designed to prevent?
      3. What was the remedy that Parliament was trying to provide?
      4. What was the reason for this remedy?
   3. Advantages
      1. Gives effect to Parliament's intentions
         1. Smith v Hughes
            1. Intention to stop prostitutes being a nuisance to others whether literally in the street or not
      2. Allows judges to use common sense
      3. Allows judges to consider social & technological changes
      4. Allows judges to look at external aids such as Hansard
   4. Disadvantages
      1. Finding the intention of Parliament can be difficult
      2. Undemocratic - gives too much power to unelected judges
      3. Does not reflect modern needs
      4. May cause confusion
5. Golden Rule
   1. Use the literal rule unless doing so would product an absurd result
   2. Narrow Application
      1. If a word is ambiguous, judge can choose a possible meaning
   3. Wide Application
      1. Only one meaning, but modify to stop absurd result
         1. Adler v George (1964)
            1. 'In the vicinity of' modified to include being IN the area
         2. R v Sigsworth (1935)
            1. Stopped son inherting mother's estate after murdering her
   4. Advantages
      1. Courts can make sensible decisions by altering definitions of words in statutes
      2. Parliament don't need to pass new legislation, saving time
      3. Still respects Parliamentary Sovereignty
   5. Disadvantages
      1. Only allows change in limited circumstances
      2. Unpredictable and lacks guidelines
      3. Its application is inconsistent
6. Literal Rule
   1. To apply the words of the statute literally, exactly as they are written
   2. Fisher V Bell (1960)
      1. Knife displayed in shop window should have been contrary to Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959. The literal rule was applied to say that the display was not a contract / offer to sell but just an 'invitation to treat'
   3. Whiteley v Chappell (1868)
      1. Charged with impersonating 'any person entitled to vote' the defendant was acquitted because he impersonated a dead person, who was therefore not entitled to vote
   4. Advantages
      1. Respects Parliamentary Sovereignty
      2. Encourages certainty & people know where they stand
      3. Quick decisions can be made
   5. Disadvantages
      1. Sometimes produces an absurd result
      2. Hard to apply if words have more than one meaning
      3. Not flexible & judges can't use common sense