Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Okay as we know there are 3 primary rules of interpretation - golden, literal and mischief. Which rules of these rules supports the view "object of all interpretation is to discover the intention of parliament, but the intention of parliament must be deduced from language used"

    I personally think it's the literal rule but my buddy says mischief. Thoughts?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twothousand)
    Okay as we know there are 3 primary rules of interpretation - golden, literal and mischief. Which rules of these rules supports the view "object of all interpretation is to discover the intention of parliament, but the intention of parliament must be deduced from language used"

    I personally think it's the literal rule but my buddy says mischief. Thoughts?
    yes mischief.
    look at the case of Smith v Hughes [1960] which was about 2 prostitutes who were soliciting for customers.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maura Kat)
    yes mischief.
    look at the case of Smith v Hughes [1960] which was about 2 prostitutes who were soliciting for customers.

    Thank You Kat. But tge quote is from Capper v Balwin case and the text in my book says the following was said in the case:

    However, the purposive approachthe judge likes to take, it is accepted by all that he is constrained in his purposive approach by clear linguistic limits of text.


    So in Capper v Baldwin it was held "Counsel's argument comes down to this, if he is wrong and you cant exclude a machine like this...and what he maintians must have been the main intention of parliament, namely, an intention not to pernit such machine to be operated. I agree, it is odd, but intention of parliament must be deduced from language used and it may very well be tgat parliament expected the necessary limitation to be imposed by permit. But as that it may, Im quite unable to construe the words in such a way to exclude the machine"

    Doesnt this quote points towards literal rule? (English isnt my first language, so Im not sure) It would honestly be a great help. Thank you so much in advance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twothousand)
    Thank You Kat. But tge quote is from Capper v Balwin case and the text in my book says the following was said in the case:

    However, the purposive approachthe judge likes to take, it is accepted by all that he is constrained in his purposive approach by clear linguistic limits of text.


    So in Capper v Baldwin it was held "Counsel's argument comes down to this, if he is wrong and you cant exclude a machine like this...and what he maintians must have been the main intention of parliament, namely, an intention not to pernit such machine to be operated. I agree, it is odd, but intention of parliament must be deduced from language used and it may very well be tgat parliament expected the necessary limitation to be imposed by permit. But as that it may, Im quite unable to construe the words in such a way to exclude the machine"

    Doesnt this quote points towards literal rule? (English isnt my first language, so Im not sure) It would honestly be a great help. Thank you so much in advance.
    heya where are you from?
    which university are you in?
    which textbook are you talking about?

    literal : take the simple plain meaning of Parliament
    mischief : goes beyond the meaning of the literal approach and observes the naughtiness of the offence in order to ensure the person doesn't escape from punishment
    golden : if the literal rule is adopted and the outcome is absurd then the courts will adopt the second meaning of the statute.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Im from Malaysia, a local university student. Thank you for your kind reply Kat. I understand clearly what the 3 rules do thanks to your summary above. But please be kind enough to take some of your valuable time to read the quote from the passage (including bolded part) and say whether it points towards the literal rule or not. Im sort of having great difficulty and my statutory interpretation paper is on Monday.

    Ps- thank you so much for pointing out the Smith v Hughes case. I can add that to my answer. And thank you for taking time to reply.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twothousand)
    Im from Malaysia, a local university student. Thank you for your kind reply Kat. I understand clearly what the 3 rules do thanks to your summary above. But please be kind enough to take some of your valuable time to read the quote from the passage (including bolded part) and say whether it points towards the literal rule or not. Im sort of having great difficulty and my statutory interpretation paper is on Monday.

    Ps- thank you so much for pointing out the Smith v Hughes case. I can add that to my answer. And thank you for taking time to reply.
    since i join this forum, Asian people have shown to be nice, polite and appreciative people

    its good to give examples for each of the 3 types of approaches.
    and don't forget about purposive approach as well.

    to be honest i don't like to read from websites because they offer very condensed explanation as compared to a proper textbook which i prefer.

    why don't you read this and you will understand everything much clearly?
    http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Golden-rule.php
    http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Literal-rule.php
    http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Mischief-rule.php
    http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Purposive-approach.php
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.