The term ‘Interpretation’ refers to the act of giving something a meaning. The legislative wing of the government is charged with the responsibility of enacting legislations. The key function of the judiciary is to interpret statutes passed by parliament and give meaning to their provisions. The general rule of statutory interpretation is that a statute should be read and interpreted as a whole and not in parts. It is worth noting that the main objective of statutory interpretation is to evaluate the intention of the legislature and what such statutes convey in the words used.
The rules of statutory interpretations are sometimes referred to as ‘cannons of construction’ and they include the literal rule, the golden rule and the mischief rule. Under the literal rule of interpretation, the words used in a statute are interpreted using their literal meaning. Therefore, the literal rule uses the natural or ordinary meaning of words used in a statute. In addition, the golden rule of statutory interpretation is where the words used in a statute are given their literal meaning except in instances where giving them such meaning might produce an absurdity in the statute. The mischief rule, on the other hand, has its origin from Heydon’s Case of 1584. This case outlined the four key elements to consider while interpreting a statute. These elements include: scrutinize the common law before the Act, identify the mischief that parliament intended to eliminate, identify the remedy decided upon by parliament, and finally effect that remedy.
Even though the mischief rule is cited as the most complex one, it is the most viable because of the fact that the understanding of a statute is left to the discretion of the court. Under this rule, the court has to examine the intention of the legislature during the time such an Act was legislated and then identify the mischief that the legislature intended to eliminate. After this, the court must interpret the statute in a manner that gives effect to the remedy of that mischief. In the case of Smith vs Hughes (1960), the court used mischief rule to interpret S1 (1) of the Streets Offenses Act of 1959. In this case, the defendant contended that since she had used her apartment and not the street to attract passersby for prostitution purposes, she was not in breach of the section. The court examined what the statute was anticipated to remedy and found that the intention of the statute was to clean up the streets as well as to prevent prostitutes from pestering innocent individuals. The court therefore held that the defendant, Ms Smith, was guilty of the offense.
None of the three rules of statutory interpretations can be considered to be a hundred percent consistent. Arguably, all these rules provide the courts with an avenue through which they can be able to interpret statutes for purposes of arriving at the best conclusion of a particular case. Nonetheless, the mischief rule provides a more comprehensive means of interpretating statutes in that the rule requires the court to examine the intention of the legislature during the time such an Act was legislated. After doing so, the court then identifies the mischief that the legislature intended to eliminate after which it must interpret the statute in a manner that gives effect to the remedy of that mischief. While the literal rule only uses the natural or ordinary meaning of words used in a statute, the golden rule gives words their literal meaning except in instances where giving them such meaning could produce an absurdity in the statute.
References
Heydon. v. R (1584), [1584] 3 Co Rep 7a, Moore KB 128, 76 ER 637.
Smith. v. Hughes (1960), [1960] 1 WLR 830.