SQE1 statutory interpretation: what you must know and how it is tested

SQE1 statutory interpretation questions test the approaches courts use to find the meaning of an Act, the aids available and the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998. Courts begin with the words in their context and purpose. Read it with the wider Legal System guide.

The rules to apply

The traditional approaches are not a strict hierarchy. The literal rule gives words their ordinary meaning even if the result seems harsh (Fisher v Bell; Whiteley v Chappell). The golden rule departs from the ordinary meaning to avoid an absurd result. On the narrow approach, where the words have more than one meaning, the court chooses the one that avoids absurdity (R v Allen). On the wider approach, the court modifies even clear words to avoid a repugnant result (Re Sigsworth). The mischief rule asks what defect in the old law Parliament meant to cure (Heydon's Case; Smith v Hughes). Modern courts take a purposive approach, reading the words in context to give effect to the purpose of the Act.

Aids. Intrinsic aids are parts of the Act itself, such as the long title, headings and definitions. Extrinsic aids include explanatory notes, Law Commission reports and dictionaries. Parliamentary debates (Hansard) may be used only where the legislation is ambiguous, obscure or leads to absurdity, and the statement is a clear one by the minister or promoter (Pepper v Hart). Language aids include ejusdem generis (general words after a list take the same kind), expressio unius (the express mention of one thing excludes others) and noscitur a sociis (a word is known by the company it keeps).

Presumptions. Parliament is presumed not to intend retrospective effect, to interfere with liberty or property without compensation, or to remove mens rea from criminal offences (Sweet v Parsley). Under s3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 legislation must be read and given effect, so far as possible, compatibly with Convention rights (Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza). If that is impossible, a higher court may make a declaration of incompatibility under s4, which does not affect the validity of the Act or bind the parties. Courts must take account of Strasbourg case law (s2). Since 1 January 2024 retained EU law is called assimilated law and the principle of supremacy of EU law no longer applies.

Traps examiners use

• Treating the literal, golden and mischief rules as a compulsory order.
• Using Hansard on a clear provision. Pepper v Hart is narrow.
• Saying a declaration of incompatibility invalidates the Act. It does not.
• Confusing s3 (interpret compatibly) and s4 (declare incompatibility).
• Ignoring the presumption that criminal offences require mens rea.

Worked question 1

Counsel for the defendant wants to refer the court to a statement by the Minister in Parliament about the meaning of a section. The section is clear on its face and leads to no absurd result. May the court refer to the statement?

• A. Yes, because Hansard is always admissible.
• B. Yes, because the minister's statement binds the court.
• C. No, because Hansard may be used only if the legislation is ambiguous, obscure or absurd, and the statement is clear.
• D. No, because Hansard is never admissible.
• E. Yes, because it is an intrinsic aid.

Answer: C. Pepper v Hart allows reference to Hansard only where the words are ambiguous, obscure or lead to absurdity, and only if the ministerial statement is clear. The section here is clear. Hansard is an extrinsic aid, and a statement does not bind the court. D is too absolute.

Worked question 2

A court decides that a provision in an Act of Parliament cannot be read compatibly with a Convention right, even using s3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. What is the outcome?

• A. The provision is struck down as invalid.
• B. The court may make a declaration of incompatibility, and the provision remains valid and in force.
• C. The court must disapply the provision for that case only.
• D. The Act must be repealed within 28 days.
• E. The court rewrites the provision to remove the incompatibility.

Answer: B. Courts cannot strike down Acts of Parliament. A declaration under s4 draws the problem to Parliament's attention but does not change the law or bind the parties. Section 3 comes first and D, E and A overstate the court's power.

Checklist before you move on

• Do the words have an ordinary meaning in context?
• Is there ambiguity or absurdity that affects the approach?
• Which aids are legitimate (intrinsic, extrinsic, Hansard conditions)?
• Which presumption helps (retrospectivity, liberty, mens rea)?
• Convention rights: s3, then s4.

Test yourself on more original questions in our SQE1 practice questions.

Questions

Related

• SQE1 Legal System
• SQE1 practice questions: how to answer single best answer items
• SQE1 mock: how to time, pace and review it

Sources: SRA: SQE1 Assessment Specification (from 1 September 2026); Human Rights Act 1998; Find Case Law (National Archives). Checked 10 November 2026.