INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
Problems Problems and Limitations in applying the Mischief Rule
INTRODUCTION
Within
the
context
i nt er pr et at ion
t ha t
of
law, the
a tt e pt s
to
rule i s a
m i s ch i ef
! et er i ne
t he
rul e of
l e"i sl at or #s
s ta tu tor y i nt en ti on $
Ori"inatin" fro a %&th century case in the Unite! 'in"!o, its ain ai is to !eterine the (ischief an! !efect( that the statute in )uestion has set out t o r e e! y, a n ! w h a t r u l i n " w o ul ! e f f ec t i * el y i pl e e nt t h is r e e! y$ T h e ischief rule is a rule of statutory interpretation !esi"ne! to assist a +ourt in i ! e nt i f yi n " t h e p r o pe r c o n st r u c ti o n o f s t a t ut o r y w o r ! i n" a c c o r! i n " t o t h e o r i "i n a l i n t e n t io n o f t h e l e " i s l a to r s $ T h e r u l e r e ) u i r es t h e + o ur t t o i ! e nt i f y the
r el e*ant
pr e Ac t
co o n
l aw
a n!
f ro
tha t
t he
- is chie f.
or
in/ustice0!efect that the Act was !esi"ne! to ree!y$ The 1ischief Rule is a c e rt a in r ul e t ha t / u! "e s c a n a p pl y i n s t at u to r y i nt e rp r et a ti on i n o r !e r t o !isco*er Parliaent#s intention$ It essentially as2s the )uestion3 4y creatin" a n A c t o f P a r l ia e nt w h a t w a s t h e ( i sc h i ef ( t h a t t h e p r e * i o us l a w ! i ! n o t co*er5 The application of this rule "i*es the /u!"e ore !iscretion than the l it er al a n! t he " ol !e n r ul e a s i t a ll ows hi t o e ff ec ti *e ly ! ec i! e o n P a rl i a en t #s i nt e nt $ I t c a n 6 e a r "u e! t ha t t h is u n! e r i ne s P a rl i a e nt # s supreacy an! is un!eocratic as it ta2es lawa2in" !ecisions away fro t he l e" is la tu re $ W he n i t i s n ot c le ar w he th er a n a ct f al ls w it hi n w ha t i s prohi6ite! 6y a particul ar piece of le"islation, the /u!"es can appl y the ischief rule$ This eans that the courts can ta2e into account the reasons why the le"islation was passe!7 what 8ischief9 the le"islation was !esi"ne! to cure, an! whether the act in )uestion fell within the 8ischief9$
INTRPRT!TION O" T# L!$
T he 1 is ch ie f R ul e i s a c er ta in r ul e t ha t / u! "e s c an a pp ly i n s ta tu to ry interpretation in or!er to !isco*er Parliaent#s intention$ It essentially as2s t h e ) u e s t io n 3 4 y c r e a ti n " a n A c t o f Parliaent what was the (ischief( that the pre*ious law !i! not co*er5 This was set out in :ey!on#s +ase % where it was state! that there were four points to 6e ta2en into consi!eration when interpretin" a statute3 %$ What was the coon law 6efore the a2in" of the act5 ;$ What was the (ischief an! !efect( for which the coon law !i! not pro*i!e5 <$ W h a t w a s t h e r e e ! y t h e p a r l i a e n t h a t h r e s o l * e ! a n ! a p p o i n t e ! t o cure the !isease of the coonwealth5 an! %& What is the true reason of the ree!y5 T h e r u l e w a s i l l u s t r a t e ! i n t h e c a s e o f S m i t h v H u g h e s 2 , w h er e u n! er t he Street Offences Act %=>=, it was a crie for prostitutes to (loiter or solicit in the street for the purposes of prostitution($ The !efen!ants were callin" to en in the street fro 6alconies an! tappin" on win!ows$ They claie! they w er e n ot " ui lt y a s t he y w er e n ot i n t he ( st re et $( T he / u! "e a pp li e! t he ischief rule to coe to the conclusion that they were "uilty as the intention of the Act was to co*er the ischief of harassent fro prostitutes$ This rule of construction i s o f n a r r o w e r a p p l i c a t i o n t h a n t h e "ol!en rule o r t h e pla in eanin" r u l e , i n t h a t i t c a n o n l y 6 e u s e ! t o i n t e r p r e t a s t a t u t e a n ! , s t r i c t l y spea2in", only when the statute was passe! to ree!y a !efect in the coon law$
1 ?%>@B < +O REP Ca 2 ?%=&DB ; All E$R$ @>=
e " is l a t i* e i n t en t i s ! e t er i ne ! 6 y e x a i n i n" s e c o n! a r y s o u r c e s , s u c h a s coittee reports, treatises, law re*iew articles an! correspon!in" statutes$ This rule has often 6een use! to resol*e a6i"uities in cases in which the literal rule cannot 6e applie!$ In Smith v Hughes the ischief approach "a*e a ore sensi6le outcoe than that of the literal approach$ !D'!NT!() !ND DI)!D '!NT!()*
4 a s ic a l l y i t h a s t w o a i n a ! * a n ta " e s % T h e a w + o i s s io n s e e s i t a s a far ore satisfactory way of interpretin" acts as oppose! to the Gol!en or iteral rules i$e$ to say that it closes all the loopholes an! allows the law to !e*elop an! a!apt to chan"in" nee!s$ ; It usually a*oi!s un/ust or a6sur! results in sentencin"$ In the lan!ar2 c a s e o f Royal College of Nursing v. DHSS 3 , or! Hiploc2 sai! that Whate*er ay 6e the technical iperfections of its !raftsanship, howe*er, its purpose in y *iew 6ecoes clear if one starts 6y consi!erin" what was the state of the law 6efore the passin" of the Act, what was the ischief that re)uire! aen!ent, an! in what respect was the existin" law unclear$ The !isa!*anta"es to ischief rule are % i t is seen to 6e out of !ate as it has 6een in use since the %&th centur y, when cri inal law was the priar y source of law an! parliaentary supreacy was not esta6lishe!$ ; It "i*es too uch power to the unelec te! /u!iciar y which is ar"ue! to 6e un!eocratic$ < In t h e % & t h c e n tu r y, t h e / u ! ic i a r y w o u l ! o f t e n ! r a f t a c t s o n 6 e h a l f o f t h e 2 i n " a n ! w e r e t h e r e f o re w e l l ) u a l i fi e ! i n w h a t t h e i s c h i e f t h e a c t w a s e a n t t o ree!y$ The "oo! thin" a6out ischief rule is that it allows /u!"es to put into effect the ree!y parliaent chose to cure a pro6le in the coon law$ It was !isco*ere! at a tie when statutes were a inor source of law7 !raftin" was
3 (1981) 1 AER 545 4 http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/mischie!r"#e
not as precise as to!ay an! 6efore parliaentary supreacy was esta6lishe!$ 4ut tal2in" a6out its liitation, 6y this, /u!"es can -rewrite. statutes law, which only parliaent is allowe! an! initially it re)uires !isco*erin" the ischief in or!er for this rule to 6e applie!$ >
PRO+LM) $IT# !PPLIC!TION O" MI)C#I" RUL
I t c r e a te s t h e c r i e a f t e r t h e e * e n t , t h u s i n f r i n" i n" t h e r u l e o f l a w$ I t " i *e s t he / u !" e s a l a w a 2i n" p ow e r i nf r in "i n " t he s e pa r at i on o f p ow e rs $ T he /u!"es ha*e to 6rin" their own *iews, sense of oralit y an! pre/u!ices to the case$ & T h e p r o 6 l e s i n a p p l i c a t i o n o f i s c h i e f r u l e h a s 6 e e n o 6 s e r * e ! i n * ar io us c as es f or e $" $ i n a n i p or ta nt / u! " en t o f Elliot v. Grey 7 , The !efen!ant#s car was par2e! on the roa!$ It was /ac2 e! up an! ha! its 6attery reo*e!$ :e was char"e! with an offence un!er the Roa! Traffic Act %=
the
car
on
the
roa!
as
cle arly
it
was
not
!ri*a6l e$
The /u!"es applie! the ischief rule an! hel! that the car was 6ein" use! on the roa! as it represente! a haar! an! therefore insurance woul! 6e re)uire! in the e*ent of an inci!ent$ The statute was aie! at ensurin" people were copensate! when in/ure! !ue to the haar!s create! 6y others$ A l s o i n t h e c a s e o f DPP v. ull ! , A an was char"e! with an offence un!er s $ %J % o f t he S t re e t O f f en c es Ac t % => = w h i c h a 2 es i t a n o ff en c e f o r a #coon prostitute to loiter or solicit in a pu6lic street or pu6lic place for the
5 www.schoo#$porta#.co."k/%ro"p&ow'#oai#e.asp* %ro"p+&,54-18Reso"rce+,21345 0 http://www.e$#awreso"rces.co."k/ischie$r"#e.php - 190 1 308 1995 88
purposes of prostitut ion#$ The a"istrates foun! hi not "uilt y on the "roun!s that #coon prostitute# only relate! to feales an! not ales$ The prosecution appea le! 6y wa y of case state!$ The court hel! that the Act !i! only apply to feales$ The wor! prostitute was a6i"uous an! they applie! the ischief rule$ The Street Offences Act w as i nt ro !u ce ! a s a r es ul t o f t he w or 2 o f t he Wol fe n! en R ep or t i nt o h oo se xu al it y
a n!
p ro st it ut io n$
Th e
R ep or t
o nl y
r ef er re !
to
f e al e
prostitution an! !i! not e ntion ale prostitut es$ The K4H therefor e hel! the ischief the Act was aie! at was controllin" the 6eha*iour of only feale prostitutes$ In Cor"ery v. Car#enter $ , The !efen!ant was ri!in" his 6icycle whilst un!er the influence of alcohol$ S$%; of the icensin" Act %@C; a!e it an offence to 6e !run2 in char"e of a #carria"e# on the hi"hway$ The court here also applie! the ischief rule hol!in" that a ri!in" a 6icycle w a s w i t h i n t h e i s c h i e f o f t h e a c t a s t h e ! e f e n !a n t r e p r e s en t e ! a ! a n" e r t o hiself an! other roa! users$ S o t h e s e a r e f e w c a s e s w h e re w e s e e t h a t t h e / u ! " e s h a ! t o a p p l y t h e i r o w n *iews an! sense of orality to the case in or!er to !eli*er /ustice$ !PPLIC!TION O" MI)C#I" RUL IN INDI!N C!) L!$)
W h e ne * e r t h e r e a r e t w o p o s s i 6 le i n t er p r e ta t i o ns , t h e o n e w h ic h s u 6 se r * e t o the intent of the le"islature is to 6e accepte!$ The o6/ect of the aforesai! Act is for planne! !e*elopent an! thus the interpretation, which uphol!s any such schee, shoul! 6e followe!$ :ey!ons principle is now well reco"nise! in interpretin" any enactent$ It lays !own that courts ust see, Ja what was the law 6efore a2in" of the Act7 J6 what was the ischief or !efect for w hi ch t he l aw ! i! n ot p ro *i !e 7 J c w ha t i s t he r e e! y t ha t t he Ac t h as
9 1951 1 6 12
pro*i!e!7 J! what is the reason of the ree! y$ It states that courts ust a ! op t t ha t c on s tr u ct i on w hi c h s u pp r es s es t he i sc hi e f a n ! a ! *a n ce s t he ree!y$ This has 6een appro*e! 6y this count in nu6er of !ecisions$
%D
One
o f t h e i s %.P. &ar gh ese &s . 'n(ome) ta* +ffi(er, Erna"ulam a nr. -- , in this c as e, : e y! on # s p ri nc ip le i s a pp li e! w he n t he Ac t i s o 6s cu re a n! i t i s necessary to 2now the true intention of the e"islature fro the lan"ua"e use!$ If interpretation results in a6sur!ity an! results in a situation which is )uite contrary to the o6/ects an! reasons for which the enactent is a!e, the + o ur t u st e s c he w l i t e ra l o r p l a in i n t er p r e ta t i o n a n ! f i n ! t h e true intention 6y purposi*el y construin" the s tatute$ In the case of S a n t r a / v . S t a t e o f 0aharashtra - 2 this +ourt hel! that e*ery le"islation is a social !ocuent an! /u!icial construc tion see2s to !ecipher the statutor y iss ion, lan"ua"e peri ttin", ta2in" the one fro the rule in :ey!on#s case of suppress in" the e*il an! a!*ancin" the ree!y$ The +ourt hel! that what ust tilt the 6alance is the purpose of the statute, its potential frustration an! /u!icial a*oi!ance of the ischief 6y a construction where6y the eans of licensin" eet the en!s of ensurin" pure an! potent ree!ies for the people$ The +ourt o6ser*e! that this li6erty with lan"ua"e is sanctifie! 6y "reat Lu!"es an! text6oo2s$ 1axwell instructs us in these wor!s3 1here is no ou4t that the offi(e of the 5uge is, to ma"e su(h (onstru(tion a s i l l s u # # re s s t h e m i s ( hi e f , a n a va n ( e t h e r em e y, a n t o s u # #r es s a l l evasions for the (ontinuan(e of the mis(hief. o (arry out effe(tively the o4/e(t of a statute, it must 4e so (onstrue as to efeat all attem#ts to o, or avoi oing, in an inire(t or (ir(uitous manner that hi(h it has #rohi4ite
1 http://i'terpretatio'ostat"tes.b#ogspot.com/21/0/mischie$r"#e$he7o's$ pri'cip#e.htm# 11 %=@% J S++ %C< 12 %=C AIR >%C
or en/oine6 uano ali ui #rohi4etur, #rohi4etur et omne #e uo ev enitur a 0u.8 This anner of construction has two aspects$ One is that the courts, in!ful of the ischief rule, will not 6e astute to narrow the lan"ua"e of a statute so as to allow persons within its pur*iew to escape its net$ The other is that the s ta tu te ay 6 e a pp li e! t o t he s u6 st an ce r at he r t ha n t he e re f or o f transactions, thus !efeatin" any shifts an! contri*ances which parties ay ha*e !e*ise! in the hope of there6y fallin" outsi!e the Act$ Siilarly in .%. Desai n Co. n +rs. vs Stat e +f Pun/a4 n nr. - 3 The court sai! that it is well 2nown principle of construction for interpretin" pro*isions of such ree!ial pro*isions of Statute that courts are to a 2e such construction as shall suppress the ischief an! a!*ance the ree!y an! also suppress su6tle inter*ention an! e*asions in continuance of the ischief$
13 J;DD@ < PR ;@;
