The mischeif rule v the purposive approach

Hey,

Can someone run through the different between these two rules please? I know the mischief rule is where the court looks at the law prior to the introduction of the Act in order to establish what gap in the law/mischief the Act was intended to remedy, and that the purposive approach is described as going beyond this by seeking to established what Parliament intended to achieve by the introduction of the Act - but what does this mean in real terms? Anyone got any case law examples?

My problem can be demonstrated by Smith v Hughes. The court looked at the law before the introduction of the Street Offences Act and found that the aim behind the act was to 'enable people to walk down the streets without being molested or solicited at by common prostitutes' - surely this would demonstrate the purposive approach as well?

I don't quite understand the difference that's my problem really.

Thanks

Reply 1

Dan_The_Man

matthew.

Hey,

Can someone run through the different between these two rules please? I know the mischief rule is where the court looks at the law prior to the introduction of the Act in order to establish what gap in the law/mischief the Act was intended to remedy, and that the purposive approach is described as going beyond this by seeking to established what Parliament intended to achieve by the introduction of the Act - but what does this mean in real terms? Anyone got any case law examples?

My problem can be demonstrated by Smith v Hughes. The court looked at the law before the introduction of the Street Offences Act and found that the aim behind the act was to 'enable people to walk down the streets without being molested or solicited at by common prostitutes' - surely this would demonstrate the purposive approach as well?

I don't quite understand the difference that's my problem really.

Thanks

I don't know if you need to know the purposeive approach really as the other three will proabaly be suffiecient. I have never seen a Q where they ask you specifically about one approach

Reply 2

matthew.

OP

Yeah I had that in the back on my mind but I'm being safe rather than sorry :smile:

(and doing it speedily given the time! :biggrin:

)

I have found some notes I wrote on it a while ago which simply say it allows the courts to adopt an interpretation well beyond (and even over-ruleing) what is said in the Act.

I think it also links in with the use of the aids, as I have noted that courts are prepated to go to much length to look at additional material in order to find the true purpose of the legislation.

Case Fitzpatrik v Stirling Housing Association.

I think that'll do tbh, I would not consider the mischief and purposive approaches together if the question asked to name 1/2/3 rules anyway.

p.s. What topics have you learnt? I have done/doing Statutory Interpretation, Delegated Legislation and although it doesn't always come up, Influences Upon Parliament as it's fairly easy imo.

Also, where to presumptions and rules of language come in Staturoty Interpretation? They're not really aids are they....