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 found that a dead person is not entitled to vote, taking words from the act literally. Decisions made can arguably be quite harsh, in London & North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman [1946] a man was killed while oiling points on a railway line. His wife, attempted to claim compensation, as the railway company was supposed to provide a look out [Fatal Accidents act]. However this act stated only men “relaying” and “repairing” the railway track, the court took this literally, and therefore the widow could not gain compensation
The golden rule is in effect an alteration of the literal rule. Like the literal rule, they follow the meaning of the words in the act literally, but if it does lead to an unfair, harsh or absurd result, they are allowed to avoid it. This goes against what Lord Scarman said 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 golden rule corrects what the judge believes to be an absurd result, something that Lord Scarman does not agree with. There are two main ways, in which it is used. Firstly you cannot alter the meaning of a word in the act, unless there is more than more meaning, which you are then able to choose between. This is shown in R v Allen [1872] where in the Person Act [1861] section 57 made it an offence to marry when there original spouse was still living, and no divorce had been put through. Marry can mean both, to go through a ceremony or to be legally married. In the Person Act, the court decided that it did have another meaning, to go through the ceremony of marriage. The second usage of the golden rule, is the when the words have only one clear meaning, which would lead to a repugnant situation. They can in this situation, use the golden rule to modify words in a statute, to ensure a fair outcome. This is shown in Sigsworth [1935], where a man had murdered his mother, in order to benefit from her will. In fact his mother had not made a will, and in this instance, property normally goes to the next of kin [Administration estates act]. This of course would be a repugnant situation, and the court was rightfully not willing to let the murderer benefit from his mothers death, which was at his own hands. In this situation they used the golden rule.
The mischief rule gives judges more discretion than the three other rules. It allows judges to decide for themselves the true mischief the act in question, was designed to address. It could be said, that this undermines parliaments supremacy. Hansard is a record of all the acts, and helps the judge find the mischief which parliament who created the act intended to get rid of. An example of the rule can be found in Smith v Hughes [1960] where under the Street offences act [1959] it was a crime for prostitutes to "loiter or solicit in the street for the purposes of prostitution". The women in question, were calling to men below there balcony. They claimed they were not guilty as they were not present on the street itself. The judge however applied the mischief rule in this situation and found that they were guilty, as the true intention of the act was to avoid the act of harassment from prostitutes.
The Purposive approach means to look for reasons why, that particular law was passed using Hansard, and to interpret the words in accordance to that. This approach was set up in Pepper v Hart [1993]. After House of Lords held that courts now take a purposive approach to interpreting legislation, and to find what Parliament intended, all sources including which is records of debates in Parliament before an Act is passed. This again goes against Lord Scarman’s beliefs in the above statement, as it is the opposite of the literal approach.