The mischief rule is one of three rules of statutory interpretation traditionally applied by English courts. The other two are the "plain meaning rule" and the "golden rule". The main aim of the rule is to determine the "mischief and defect" that the statute in question has set out to remedy, and what ruling would "suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy". In applying the mischief rule, the court is essentially asking what part of the law did the law not cover, but was meant to be rectified by Parliament in passingthe bill. The rule was first set out in Heydon's Case, a 16th-century ruling of the Exchequer Court.
Meaning and use
In Conway v Rimmer it was observed that judges can apply in statutory interpretation in order to discover Parliament's intention. In applying the rule, the court is essentially asking what the mischief was that the previous law did not cover, which Parliament was seeking to remedy when it passed the law now being reviewed by the court. The mischief rule is of narrower application than the golden rule or the plain meaning rule, in that it can only be used to interpret a statute and, strictly speaking, only when the statute was passed to remedy a defect in the common law. Legislative intent is determined by examining secondary sources, such as committee reports, treatises, law review articles and corresponding statutes. The application of this rule gives the judge more discretion than the literal and the golden rule as it allows Parliament's intent to be taken into consideration. The way in which the mischief rule can produce more sensible outcomes than those that would result if the literal rule were applied is illustrated by the ruling in Smith v Hughes 2 All E.R. 859. Under the Street Offences Act 1959, it was a crime for prostitutes to "loiter or solicit in the street for the purposes of prostitution". The defendants were calling to men in the street from balconies and tapping on windows. They claimed they were not guilty as they were not "in the street". The judge applied the mischief rule to conclude that they were guilty as the intention of the act was to cover the mischief of harassment from prostitutes.
History
The rule was first set out in Heydon's Case 76 ER 637 3 CO REP 7a, where the court held that four points should be taken into consideration:
Traditional use
In the century in which it was created, and for some time thereafter, the mischief rule was used in a legislative environment very different from the one which has prevailed in the past two centuries. As Elmer Driedger notes, Sixteenth-century common law judges looked upon statutes as a gloss upon the common law, even as an intrusion into their domain. Hence, statutes were viewed from the point of view of their effect upon the common law, as adding to it, subtracting from it or patching it up. Then also, in the time of Heydon's Case, the judges paid more attention to the "spirit" of the law than to the letter. Having found the mischief they proceeded to make mischief with the words of the statute. They remodelled the statute, by taking things out and putting things in, in order to fit the "mischief" and "defect" as they had found them.
Modern use
Modern courts apply the rule in a more restricted manner, and generally with a greater regard for the integrity of the statutes which they are interpreting. Driedger puts it this way: "o this day, Heydon's Case is frequently cited. The courts still look for the 'mischief' and 'remedy', but now use what they find as aids to discover the meaning of what the legislature has said rather than to change it". Driedger goes on to argue that this modern use of the mischief rule ought to be understood as one of the components of what he characterized as the "modern" method of statutory construction, rather than a stand-alone rule serving, as an alternative to the methods of construction proposed by the plain meaning rule and the golden rule.
Advantages
In a common law jurisdiction, the existence of precedent and the knock-on effects of construing a statute prevent misuse of the rule
The Law Commission sees it as a far more satisfactory way of interpreting acts as opposed to the golden or literal rules
It usually avoids unjust or absurd results in sentencing
It gives too much power to the unelected judiciary which is argued to be undemocratic
In the 16th century, the judiciary would often draft acts on behalf of the king and were therefore well qualified in what mischief the act was meant to remedy. This is not often the case in modern legal systems.
