Mischief rule of statutory interpretation

The Mischief Rule of Statutory Interpretation

The mischief rule of statutory interpretation is the oldest of the rules. The mischief rule was established in Heydon's Case [1584] EWHC Exch J36 Case summary. In Re Sussex Peerage, it was held that the mischief rule should only be applied where there is ambiguity in the statute. Under the mischief rule the court's role is to suppress the mischief the Act is aimed at and advance the remedy.

Case examples of the mischief rule:

Smith v Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830; Case summary

Royal College of Nursing v DHSS [1981] 2 WLR 279 Case summary

Elliot v Grey [1960] 1 QB 367 Case summary

Corkery v Carpenter [1951] 1 KB 102 Case summary

DPP v Bull [1995] QB 88 Case summary

Problems with the mischief rule

Creates a crime after the event eg Smith v Hughes, Elliot v Grey thus infringing the rule of law

Gives judges a law making role infringing the separation of powers.

Judges can bring their own views, sense of morality and prejudices to a case eg Smith v Hughes, DPP v Bull.

Advantages of the mischief rule

Closes loopholes

allows the law to develop and adapt to changing needs eg Royal College of Nursing v DHSS

See also the literal rule and golden rule of statutory interpretation

Mischief rule of statutory interpretation