Decribe The Mischief Rule Of Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
What does the mischief rule of statutory interpretation allow?
The mischief rule allows the court to fill gaps (loopholes) in the law that have arisen over time.
What is the basis of the mischief rule as set out in Heydon’s Case 1584?
The judge interprets the Act according to the problem or defect (known as the ‘mischief’) in the old common law that Parliament was intending to put right when passing the Act.
How is the mischief rule similar to the Purposive approach?
The mischief rule is similar to the Purposive approach, with the only difference being that the mischief must be identified before it can be used.
What may judges rely on to discover the intention of Parliament?
Judges may rely on extrinsic aids to help discover the intention of Parliament when passing the Act in question.
How was the mischief rule applied in Smith v Hughes?
The court held that prostitutes operating from balconies and ground floor windows were guilty of ‘soliciting in a street or public place’ even though they were not literally in a street or public place.
What was the intention of Parliament in the Street Offences Act 1958?
Parliament’s intention was to solve the problem of prostitution, and if they could be seen from the street, that was enough to be ‘in a street’.
Lord Parker said the aim of the Act was to ‘clean up the streets’.
How did the mischief rule apply in Royal College of Nursing v DHSS?
The court held that it was not illegal for nurses to terminate a pregnancy by an accepted method, even though they were not literally ‘registered medical practitioners’.
What was the intention of Parliament in the Abortion Act 1967?
Parliament was trying to solve the problem of dangerous, illegal ‘backstreet’ abortions.
What does S3 of the Human Rights Act state about legislation?
S3 of the Human Rights Act states that, as far as is possible, legislation should be interpreted in a way which is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
What was the outcome of Godin-Mendoza v Ghaidan regarding same-sex partners?
The phrase ‘living with the original tenant as his or her wife or husband’ was interpreted as ‘AS IF they were his or her wife or husband’, giving same-sex partners the same rights as heterosexual couples.
