The Mischief Rule PDF

Preview

Summary

Not Complete...

Description

"The mischief rule is intended to rectify 'mischief' in the statute and interpret the statute justly. It uses common law to determine how the statute is interpreted." In view of the above statement, explain briefly the application of mischief rule.

OUTLINE INTRO: HISTORY/BACKSTORY/ORIGINATION CONTENT: GUIDELINES OF THE MISCHIEF RULE CONCLUSION: EFFECTS OF THE MISCHIEF RULE

The mischief rule is one of the approaches used to interpret statutes in court. The mischief rule was founded in 1584 during the hearing of Heydon’s Case (1584) 76 ESR 637. At the time, the church controlled a lot of the land in England and the Parliament led by the crown wanted to get a lot of it back. So they passed an act called the Suppression of Religious Houses Act which transferred a great deal of land back to the crown. Heydon's case considered whether a particular parcel of land had to be passed to the crown by considering how the legislation operated on an ancient form of land title called ‘Copy Hold Title’. The court therefore had to consider the proper way for courts to read and interpret legislation and it established in this case what is known as The Mischief Rule.

The Mischief Rule says that when interpreting a statute, the role of the court is to try to determine what mischief or what problem the parliament was trying to resolve and what means the parliament was trying to use to resolve that problem. The court should interpret the statute in a way that assists the parliament to resolve that problem by its chosen means as the court put it what was the common law before the making of the Act. The court had to figure out what was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide what remedy the parliament has resolved to, to cure the problem. During the happening of ambiguity of a statute or ruling, there are 4 guidelines in applying the Mischief Rule that helps the court decide certain interpretation of a statute.

Firstly, What was the common law before the said act was established. The court has to figure out what common law was used before the said act was established because the main problem lays in it. This way, the judge will obtain context during an ambiguity of a word or phrase in a statute. For example, when a certain word in a statute has ambiguous meaning to the court, the court will have to look at the common law prior to the making of the law for context. Therefore, the ambiguity is reduced and the court sees a more clearer picture prior to having context. Secondly, What was the mischief and defect that common law did not provide. This question’s answer provides why the law was made. In other words, the purpose of the making of the law. This question paints a clearer meaning towards a statute and thus the ambiguity is reduced. This is because by figuring out what the mischief and defect the common law had, the nature and context as well as the purpose of the act can now be obtained and this will provide context to what is ambiguous in a discussed statute.

Thirdly, What remedy the parliament appointed to fix the problem. The remedy appointed by parliament means that we have to look at the effects of the law passed. This is because by knowing the effect we can figure out what the cause is from the said body of law passed. As an illustration, A distributes drugs. After Section 2 of Law X was passed, he no longer distributes drugs. We can see that Section 2 has an effect on the doings of A. Therefore, the remedy the parliament provided was Section 2 of Law X. Identifying the remedy provided by parliament gives a stronger purpose of a statute, In this illustration the remedy was provided to stop distribution of drugs. Therefore, the court obtains context to solve the ambiguity of a word or a phrase in a statute during interpretation. Lastly, What was the true reason behind the provided remedy. The reason provides the purpose of the of the making of law. For example, in Heydon’s Case when the Suppression of Religious Houses Act was passed by parliament, the intent and purpose of it was so that the crown could claim back their land which was bombarded by churches. The court now knows the intentions of the law makers, and has to support them in interpretation of an ambiguous statute or rule. Therefore, the statute can be interpreted. In conclusion, The Mischief Rule has its advantages and disadvantages. Advantages being, It solves situations when a statute is unable to be interpreted clearly or if the interpretation is ambiguous. By using the guidelines of the Mischief Rule, the decision of court in deciding what a phrase or word in a statute means can remain somewhat unbiased and its clear natural meaning can be interpreted. The Mischief Rule also completely resolves any sort of ambiguity in the wording of a statute precisely as it has a detailed process and stages before the final interpretation. Among the disadvantages of the Mischief Rule are, it can be difficult in finding the Parliament’s intention. This is because jurists are not really aware of parliamentary debates. Therefore, the difficulty. Another disadvantage is that the Mischief Rule is undemocratic. This is because the court has to side with the parliaments intentions and are somewhat biased....