ASSIGNMENT

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

TOPIC:
ELLIOT v. GREY (1960) 1 QB 367
MISCHIEF RULE OF INTERPRETATION

SUBMITTED BY:
AYSHA LUKMAN
8/5 BBA LLB
ROLL NO: 24
SUBMITTED TO:
PROFESSOR AGI K J
GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE
KOZHIKODE
 INTRODUCTION
Interpretation can be defined as the method of determining the true sense of an enactment by
rendering the words of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning.

Since, it is not possible to expect the Court to interpret arbitrarily, over the course of time,
certain principles or rules have evolved out of the continuous exercise by the Courts. One of
these rules of interpretation is the ‘Mischief Rule of Interpretation’.

Often referred to as Haydon’s Rule1, the Mischief Rule of Interpretation is one of the most
important rules of interpretation. In legal parlance, the word mischief is normally understood
to be a kind of specific injury or damage resulting from another person‟s action or inaction.
But in relation to rules of interpretation, mischief means to prevent the misuse of provisions
of a statute. It is widely known as the mischief rule primarily because it focuses on curing the
mischief.

As per the Mischief Rule of Interpretation, a statute must be construed in such a way as to
suppress the Mischief. Mischief should not have a place in the statute. If an attempt is made
to add Mischief in any statute, then it must be prevented by the Mischief Rule of
interpretation.

A lot of work has been done on this particular topic which belongs to Interpretation of Statute
because of the peculiar nature of its operation as it is considered to discover Parliament‟s
intention and to give the judge more discretion than any other rule as it allows him to
effectively decide on Parliament‟s intent. But at the same time It can be argued that this
undermines Parliament‟s supremacy and is undemocratic as it takes law-making decisions
away from the legislature. There‟s Judicial Overreach, so this controversy has been
considered in favour by many authors in their books of which some are like “Interpretation
of Statutes” by Kafaltiya, B.M. Gandhi, Maxwell and “Principles of Statutory
Interpretation” by G.P. Singh and many more in this regard and therefore Purposive
interpretation was introduced as a form of replacement for the mischief rule, the plain
meaning rule and the golden rule to determine cases. Purposive interpretation is exercised
when the courts utilize extraneous materials from the pre-enactment phase of legislation,
including early drafts, Hansards, committee reports, white papers, etc. The purposive
interpretation involves a rejection of the exclusionary rule.

1
(1854) EWHC Exch J36
 CASE LAW
ELLIOT v. GREY2

FACT OF THE CASE:

That, the defendant‟s car was parked on the road.

That, the car was jacked and its battery was removed.

That, the defendant was charged under the Road Traffic Act 1930 because of using an
uninsured people on the road.

ARGUMENTS:

The defendant argued in court that he was not “using” the car as it was parked and not being
driven.

DECISION:

The court did not rule in favor of the defendant.

BASIS OF THE DECISION:

The court applied the mischief rule and held that the Act under which the defendant was
charged was enacted to ensure that people were compensated in case of an incident and the
car was being used as it presented a hazard and hence insurance would be required in case of
an incident.

SIMILAR CASES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF NURSING v DHSS3

The Royal College of Nursing brought an action challenging the legality of the involvement
of nurses in carrying out abortions. The Offences against the Person Act 1861 makes it an
offence for any person to carry out an abortion. The Abortion Act 1967 provided that it
would be an absolute defence for a medically registered practitioner (i.e. a doctor) to carry
out abortions provided certain conditions were satisfied. Advances in medical science meant
surgical abortions were largely replaced with hormonal abortions and it was common for
these to be administered by nurses it was Held: It was legal for nurses to carry out such

2
(1960) 1 QB 367
3
(1981) 2 WLR 279
abortions. The Act was aimed at doing away with back street abortions where no medical
care was available. The actions of the nurses were therefore outside the mischief of the Act of
1861 and within the contemplate defence in the 1967 Act.

DPP v BULL4

A man was charged with an offense under s.1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959 which
makes it an offense for a „common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a public street or public
place for the purposes of prostitution‟. The magistrates found him not guilty on the grounds
that „common prostitute‟ only related to females and not males. The prosecution appealed by
way of case stated.
The court held that the Act did only apply to females. The word prostitute was ambiguous
and they applied the mischief rule. The Street Offences Act was introduced as a result of the
work of the Wolfenden Report into homosexuality and prostitution. The Report only referred
to female prostitution and did not mention male prostitutes. The QBD, therefore, held the
mischief the Act was aimed at was controlling the behaviour of only female prostitutes.

RMDC v. UOI 5

In RMDC v Union of India the definition of „prize competition‟ under s 2(d) of the Prize
competition act 1955, was held to be inclusive of only those instances in which no
substantive skill is involved. Thus, those prize competitions in which some skill was required
were exempt from the definition of „prize competition‟ under s 2(d) of the Act. Hence, in the
aforementioned case, the Supreme Court has applied the Heydon‟s Rule in order to suppress
the mischief was intended to be remedied, as against the literal rule which could have covered
prize competitions where no substantial degree of skill was required for success.

ADVANTAGES OF THE RULE:

It focuses on the parliament‟s intention behind making the law.

It allows judges to apply their minds.

It allows judges to consider the social and technological changes.

4
(1995) QB 88
5
AIR 1957 SC 628
It allows for parliamentary sovereignty.

DISADVANTAGES OF THE RULE:

It is difficult to decipher the parliament‟s intention.

It is considered as an outdated rule of interpretation.

It makes the law uncertain.

It is said to be undemocratic as it gives too much power to the judiciary which is an unelected
branch of the government.
 CONCLUSION
As it can be seen from the case, mischief rule can be applied differently by different judges. It
is mainly about the discretion and understanding of the person applying it. Though, 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 but it also seen to be out of date as it has been in
use since the 16th century, when common law was the primary source of law and
parliamentary supremacy was not established. 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. The rule can make the law uncertain,
susceptible to the slippery slope. Therefore, Purposive interpretation was introduced as a
form of replacement for the mischief rule, the plain meaning rule and the golden rule to
determine cases. The purposive approach is an approach to statutory and constitutional
interpretation under which common law courts interpret an enactment (that is, a statute, a part
of a statute, or a clause of a constitution) in light of the purpose for which it was enacted.
 REFERENCE

 Lawctopus.com
 blog.ipleaders.in
 www.legalservicesindia.com
 www.studocu.com