Rules of Statutory Interpretaions

[sunset_corniche]

Can you explain me these two Rules of Stautory Interpretations?

1. Purposive Rule
2. Contextual Rule

Thank you.

[Rachel]

Purposive Rule: It is also known as “the Mischief Rule” as this rule considers the ‘mischief’ which the statute is aimed to address.

This principle of this rule was laid down in the Heydon’s case (1584). This rule operates to enable judges to interpret a statute in such a way as to punish the mischief the statute was enacted to prevent.

Heydon's Case 1584: the criteria for the Mischief Rule:

a) What was common law before the Act?
b) What was the mischief for which the existing law did not provide?
c) What punishment has Parliament decided upon?
d) Judge should make such constructions on the Act to suppress the mischief and subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act.

The mischief rule was applied in Corkery v. Carpenter (I95I). In that case, a person was arrested for being drunk in charge of a bicycle. He was subsequently charged under the Licensing Act with being drunk in charge of a carriage. However, specific reference was not made to a bicycle in the legislation.

The court decided that, as the purpose of the Act was to prevent people from using any form of transport on the public highways whilst in a state of intoxication, the cyclist was charged.

The Contextual Rule : This requires that the meaning of the word should be in the context of the statute. For example, in Muir v. Keay, it was held that entertainment need not be celebration, but by the context of the Act could be just the consumption of food and drink.


Hope this helps!

Rachel