Criminal Law
Royal
1st. What was the common law before the making of the Act.
2nd. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide.
3rd. What remedy Parliament resolved and appointed to cure the disease.
4th. The true reason of the remedy; and then the function of the judge is to make such construction as shall supress the mischief and advance the remedy.
When faced with a piece of legislation, the courts are required to interpret its meaning so that they can apply it to the facts of the case before them. The courts have developed a range of rules of interpretation to assist them.
When the literal rule is applied the words in a statute are given their ordinary and natural meaning, in an effort to respect the will of Parliament. The literal rule was applied in the case of Fisher v Bell (1960)
The golden rule
Under the golden rule for statutory interpretation, where the literal rule gives an absurd result, which Parliament could not have intended, the judge can substitute a reasonable meaning in the light of the statute as a whole. The case of Adler v George (1964) is a classic example of the courts applying the golden rule.
Thirdly, there is the Mischief Rule (otherwise known as the rule in Heydon's case). Whilst this is in reality another way of expressing the Purposive Approach, the court takes into account four questions when applying this principle:
What was the law before the Act was passed?
What was the mischief or defect for which the law had not provided?
What remedy had Parliament resolved and appointed to cure the mischief?
What was the reason for the remedy?
The purposive approach
Historically, the preferred approach to statutory interpretation was to look for a statutes’ literal meaning. However, over the last three decades, the courts have accepted that the literal approach can be unsatisfactory. Instead, the judges have been increasingly influenced by the European approach to statutory interpretation which
1st. What was the common law before the making of the Act.
2nd. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide.
3rd. What remedy Parliament resolved and appointed to cure the disease.
4th. The true reason of the remedy; and then the function of the judge is to make such construction as shall supress the mischief and advance the remedy.
When faced with a piece of legislation, the courts are required to interpret its meaning so that they can apply it to the facts of the case before them. The courts have developed a range of rules of interpretation to assist them.
When the literal rule is applied the words in a statute are given their ordinary and natural meaning, in an effort to respect the will of Parliament. The literal rule was applied in the case of Fisher v Bell (1960)
The golden rule
Under the golden rule for statutory interpretation, where the literal rule gives an absurd result, which Parliament could not have intended, the judge can substitute a reasonable meaning in the light of the statute as a whole. The case of Adler v George (1964) is a classic example of the courts applying the golden rule.
Thirdly, there is the Mischief Rule (otherwise known as the rule in Heydon's case). Whilst this is in reality another way of expressing the Purposive Approach, the court takes into account four questions when applying this principle:
What was the law before the Act was passed?
What was the mischief or defect for which the law had not provided?
What remedy had Parliament resolved and appointed to cure the mischief?
What was the reason for the remedy?
The purposive approach
Historically, the preferred approach to statutory interpretation was to look for a statutes’ literal meaning. However, over the last three decades, the courts have accepted that the literal approach can be unsatisfactory. Instead, the judges have been increasingly influenced by the European approach to statutory interpretation which