Mischief Rule Flashcards
What is the mischief rule in statutory interpretation?
The mischief rule allows the court to fill gaps (loopholes) in the law by interpreting an Act according to the problem or defect (known as the ‘mischief’) in the old common law that Parliament intended to address when passing the Act.
What is the main difference between the mischief rule and the purposive approach?
The main difference is that under the mischief rule, the mischief must be identified before it can be used, whereas the purposive approach looks at the general purpose of the Act.
Which case set out the mischief rule?
Heydon’s Case (1584) set out the mischief rule.
In Smith v Hughes, how did the court use the mischief rule?
The court interpreted the Street Offences Act 1958 to include prostitutes operating from balconies or windows, as Parliament’s intention was to address the problem of prostitution, even if they were not literally ‘in a street.’
What did Lord Parker state as the aim of the Street Offences Act 1958 in Smith v Hughes?
Lord Parker stated the aim of the Act was to ‘clean up the streets.’
How did the court use the mischief rule in Royal College of Nursing v DHSS?
The court interpreted the Abortion Act 1967, allowing nurses to perform terminations even though they were not ‘registered medical practitioners’ because Parliament’s intention was to prevent dangerous, illegal ‘backstreet’ abortions.
What was the issue in Royal College of Nursing v DHSS, and how did the court resolve it?
The issue was whether nurses could perform terminations under the Abortion Act 1967, which stated only a ‘registered medical practitioner’ could carry out the procedure. The court ruled that Parliament’s intention was to prevent unsafe abortions, so nurses could legally perform terminations.
What is Section 3 of the Human Rights Act?
Section 3 of the Human Rights Act states that, as far as possible, legislation should be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
What did the court decide in Godin-Mendoza v Ghaidan?
The court interpreted the phrase ‘living with the original tenant as his or her wife or husband’ as ‘as if they were his or her wife or husband,’ giving same-sex partners the same rights as heterosexual couples.
