Noscitur a Sociis

The maxims and presumptions developed by the common law in the interpretation of statutes perform an important function in ascribing to the legislature certain common-sense intentions. They can assist in avoiding absurdity in the plain words of a statute , and obviate the need for lengthy examination of the legislative intent in enacting a particular provision. They are not binding legal rules, however, but "axioms of experience" which may provide guidance to a court in statutory interpretation .

The Importance of Context: The Noscitur a Sociis and Ejusdem Generis Rules

Noscitur a Sociis
The rule of noscitur a sociis states that words of a statute are to be construed in the light of their context. It may be translated as "a thing is known by its associates". In the English case of Bourne v Norwich Crematorium Ltd , Stamp J explained the rule as follows:

"English words derive colour from those which surround them. Sentences are not mere collections of words to be taken out of the sentence, defined separately by reference to the dictionary or decided cases, and then put back again into the sentence with the meaning which you have assigned to them as separate words, so as to give the sentence or phrase and meaning which as a sentence or phrase it cannot bear without distortion of the English language."

In People (Attorney General) v Kennedy, the Supreme Court was required to interpret section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 , which granted a right of appeal without any express limitation as to who could bring the appeal. The Supreme Court rejected a literal interpretation of the section and held that the right of appeal was impliedly limited to the accused person. Black J viewed the approach of the Court in this case as part of a wider principle that statutory provisions should be interpreted in context, which encompassed both the noscitur a sociis and the ejusdem generis rules.

He explained the importance of the rules as follows:

"A small section of a picture, if looked at close-up, may indicate something quite clearly; but when one stands back and examines the whole canvas, the close-up view of the small section is often found to have given a wholly wrong view of what it really represented."

He went on to say:

"If one could pick out a single word or phrase and, finding it perfectly clear in itself, refuse to check its apparent meaning in the light thrown upon it by the context or by other provisions, the result would be to render the principle of ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis utterly meaningless; for this principle requires frequently that a word or phrase or even a whole provision which, standing alone, has a clear meaning must be given quite a different meaning when viewed in the light of its context."

In HMIL Limited (Formerly Hibernia Meats International Ltd) v Minister For Agriculture and Food, the noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generisrules were applied. In construing EC regulations on the export of beef, Barr J held that, on an application of the noscitur a sociis rule, "the Court should recognise the common denominator between `scraps' and `large tendons, cartilages, pieces of fat', i.e. that all are unfit for human consumption.