In English Law, the judges throughout the years have developed the three rules of interpretation. Results of interpretation may vary according to which rule a judge uses. The three rules are Literal Rule, Golden Rule and Mischief Rule.
Literal rule, under this rule courts will give the words their plain, ordinary or dictionary meaning, even if it results in absurdity. If the words are clear, it must be applied even if it results in absurdity. It follows the exact meaning of the statute words. This is illustrated in the case of Whitely v Chappel (1846), the Act makes it an offence to impersonate ‘any person entitled to vote’, a dead person is not entitled to vote, so the defendant is not found guilty. The advantages of Literal rule: certainty and clarity, it promotes separation of powers in the three main organs of Parliament and ensures parliamentary sovereignty, it provides no scope for judges to use their own opinions or prejudices.
The disadvantage of Literal rule is that it has little emphasis on end results, this is shown in the case of Fisher v Bell , this case is concerned with the contractual definition of ‘offer’ and selling things. The court quashed the shop owner’s conviction because he merely gave ‘invitation to treat’ and did not ‘offer for sale’ the flick knife. This deems all Acts of Parliament using the words ‘offer’ tobe null since all parties can only give an invitation to treat and not ‘offer for sale’ of anything. It is absurd and unjust, and problems arise when one word has more than one meaning.
The Golden rule is an extension or modification of a Literal rule. The Golden rule starts by looking at the literal meaning but the court is then allowed to avoid an interpretation which would lead to an absurd result. There are two views on how Golden rule should be used: first is the narrow views- Lord Reid in Jones v DPP (1962), under narrow application o the Golden rule the court may only choose between the possible meanings of a word or phrase; the narrow view of Golden rule can be seen in the case of Adler v George (1964) , the defendants broke into an Air Force base to protect against the keeping of nuclear weapons on the base. They were arrested inside a building. The second view is a wider application- where the words have one clear meaning, but that meaning would lead to a repugnant/unacceptable situation, the golden rule is invoked in order to avoid absurdity i.e. to overcome absurdity if the literal rule and the purposes of public policy.
An example of this is the case of Re Sigsworth (1935) , where a son has murdered his own mother, The mother had not made a will, so normally ther estate would have been inherited by her next of kin according to the rules set out in the Administrations of Estates Act 1925. This meant that the son who murdered his mom would have inherited it as her ‘issue’. There was no ambiguity in the words of the Act, but the court was not prepared to let a murderer benefit from his crime, so it was held that the Literal rule should not apply, and the Golden rule would be used to prevent the repugnant situation of the son inheriting. Court says he cannot inherit.
The advantage of Golden rule is that it allows courts to avoid liability, prevents absurdity of Literal rule by allowing judges to choose the most sensible meaning to the words in the Act, and helps Courts put in practice what Parliament really means (respect Parliament supremacy). Disadvantages of the Golden rule are that it is limited in use and not always possible to predict when courts will use the golden rule, Michael Zander- ‘ a feeble parachute’, judges may exercise too much discretion in interpreting the law.
The last rule is Mischief Rule, Mischief Rule is considered the widest discretion to judges, which focuses on the intention of the Parliament rather than the words given. The court looked at the former law so as to discover the mischief/gap for which the present Act was enacted to remedy, to seek the purpose of the statute and the intentions of Parliament. The court should interpret the Act in such a way that the gap is covered.
The case of Heydon defnes the mischief rule as a method to free judges to interpret statute by looking at the problem (mischief) in common law which led to the reasons for Parliament to create statute. Thus, judges identify: problems of the common law; and what remedy/solution the statute is creating to solve problems in common law.
The Rule was applied in the case of Royal College Nursing where the mischief on law of Abortion was there being no clear definition of who may fall under the category of a “medical practioner”. Thus, the Abortion Act 1976 was passed to define and include a nurse being a registered medical practioner to perform the 2nd part of the abortion procedure.
In the case of Smith v Hughes (1960), the defendants were charged under the Street Offences Act (1959) with soliciting in a public place. The prostitutes were soliciting from windows, technically not a public place. The Mischief rule was applied to interpret that the prostitutes were doing what the statute was trying to abolish so they were convicted.
The main advantage of the Mischief Rule is that it closes loopholes in the law and allows laws to develop. The main disadvantage is that it creates a crime after the event has taken place which can be seen in Smith v Hughes (1960) case. It allows judges to apply their opinions and prejudices- an infringement on the separation of powers.
When comparing the three rules there are differences and similarities. The Literal rule is the basis of all cases, by providing no scope for the judge's input, it upholds the separation of powers and respects parliamentary supremacy. However, it's inflexibility can also create injustices.
The Golden rule tries to compliment the Literal rule by allowing judges to change the meaning of statutes in order to give justice. However, this infringes the separation of powers.
The Mischief Rule gives the most discretion to judges and is suited to specific, often ambiguous cases. The rule allows statutes to be refined and developed. However, the increased role of the judge means that his views and his prejudices can influence the final decision.
by
jeylaxmivescogmailcom (student)
