Legal System | Statutory Interpretation
Construction: Mischief Rule
Revision Note | Degree
Download bitsoflaw.orgbits of law
Introduction
- if it is not clear whether an act falls within what is prohibited by the statute
Heydon's Case (1584)
- defined the mischief rule
- stated that court must consider the law was before the statute was passed to understand why it was passed
- then interpret the statute in such a way to ensure that the gap is covered and remedy the mischief
Application
- mischief rule has applied in many cases
Corkery v Carpenter (1951)
- D rode a bicycle whilst drunk
- Licensing Act 1872: offence to be drunk in charge of a
carriage
on highway - held mischief intended to be addressed was drunks on the highway being in charge of transport
- D guilty
Electoral Commission v Westminster Magistrates' Court [2011]
- only persons named on the electoral register may make donations to political parties
- Political Parties, Elections & Referendums Act 2000 S58(2):
The court may, on an application made by the Commission, order the forfeiture by the party of an amount equal to the value of the donation.
- United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) received donations from a person not on the register, although he was entitled to be
- Court of Appeal: used literal approach & ordered UKIP to repay all the money donated (£349,216)
- UKIP appealed to Supreme Court
- Supreme Court held that mischief was to prevent foreign donors from funding UK political parties, so mischief had not occurred
- to reflect fault (taking money from someone not on register) UKIP ordered to repay only the money received once they knew donor was not on register (£14,481)
Advantages:
Parliamentary supremacy
- looks at why Parliament passed law so gives effect to intention not merely words
Law Commission Report on Interpretation of Statutes (1969)
- endorsed this approach as
rather more satisfactory
than the literal or golden rules suggested it should be the only rule used
Disadvantages:
Judicial law making
- judicial infringement of role of legislators
Royal College of Nursing v DHSS (1981)
- Lord Edmund-Davies: criticised the
redrafting with a vengeance
of the Abortion Act 1967
- Lord Edmund-Davies: criticised the
Finding mischief
- can be difficult to find the mischief