The Mischief Rule

Question 1

intro [paragraph 1]

Answer 1

In many statutes, the wording is ambiguous or old-fashioned or the words could have multiple meanings. Because of this, judges have developed rules over time to help them ‘find’ the meaning of the words. One of which is known as the Mischief Rule.

Question 2

definition [paragraph 2]

Answer 2

This approach was summed up in Heydon’s Case which set out the 4 points that the court must consider: a) what the common law was before the making of the act, b) what the mischief (problem) was for which the common law did not provide, c) what the remedy Parliament used to cure the disease of the commonwealth and d) the true reason for the remedy.

Question 3

meaning [paragraph 3]

Answer 3

This essentially means the judge will consider what the problem the act was trying to solve, and in what way the act attempted to stop the problem.

Question 4

Smith v Hughes

Answer 4

Prostitutes would solicit clients from balconies/windows by shouting and waving. Under the Street Offences Act 1959, it was an offence to ‘solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution’. In court, the defendants (D) argued that they were on private property. But the judge found that the act aimed to stop prostitutes harassing people, it doesn’t matter how they did it, and the Ds were guilty.

Question 5

Royal College of Nursing v DHSS

Answer 5

Under the Abortion Act 1967, pregnancies should be terminated by ‘registered medical practitioners’. At the time of the statute, only doctors could carry out the procedure but technological advances now allowed nurses to be able to carry out the procedure. The court heard that because the aim of the act was to prevent harmful, dangerous abortions, they allowed nurses to be able to carry out the procedure as this would not endanger those undergoing the procedure.