There are four main ways, for judges to interpret Parliamentary legislation; they can use the literal rule, golden rule, mischief rule, or the purposive approach.

Authors Avatar

Lord Scarman stated in Magor and St Mellons v Newport Corporation (1950):

“If Parliament says one thing and means another, it is not, under the historic principles of the common law, for the courts to correct it. The general principle must surely be acceptable in our society.  We are to be governed not by Parliament’s intentions but by Parliament’s enactments”.

  1. With reference to the above source, explain the methods used by judges to interpret Parliamentary legislation.

There are four main ways, for judges to interpret Parliamentary legislation; they can use the literal rule, golden rule, mischief rule, or the purposive approach. But on which, depends on the particular judge, as is shown in the text above. Lord Scarman states “If Parliament says one thing and means another, it is not, under the historic principles of the common law, for the courts to correct it” and “We are to be governed not by Parliament’s intentions but by Parliament’s enactments”. This implies that he approves of the literal rule, and strongly disapproves of the others.

Join now!

The literal rule, as it suggests means that the judge will interpret the words of the act literally, even if the result is an unfair or absurd one. As Lord Scarman states in Magor and St Mellons v Newport Corporation [1950] in the text above “We are to be governed not by Parliament’s intentions but by Parliament’s enactments” this fully reinforces what the literal rule is all about. The literal rule has been used in numerous cases, such as Whiteley v Chapell [1868], when the defendant was not found guilty for impersonating someone in order to vote, as it was ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

A good answer, especially for the literal, golden and mischief rules, all of which are well illustrated with relevant cases. The purposive approach is somewhat briefer and does not have a case illustration. Rating ****