Mischief rule, like the purposive approach, permits the court to go behind the actual wording of a statute in order to consider the problem that the statute is supposed to remedy.

Editor’s Note: The Mischief Rule is a certain rule that judges can apply in statutory interpretation in order to discover Parliament’s intention. The application of this rule gives the judge more discretion than the literal and the golden rule as it allows him to effectively decide on Parliament’s intent.

Mischief means—Voluntarily Cause injury or loss to someone. The Mischief Rule in the content of interpretation means-to prevents the misuse of provisions of the statute. The Rule of Mischief says that the statute should be construed in such a way to suppress the Mischief.

The mischief or purpose rule required an ambiguity or inconsistency before a court could have regard to purpose. The approach required by s 35 needs no ambiguity or inconsistency; it allows a court to consider the purposes of an Act in determining whether there is more than one possible construction.

When applying the Mischief Rule, Judges need to consider what the law was before the Act was passed, identify what was wrong with that law, decide how Parliament intended to enhance the law through the Section in question and apply that finding to the relevant case brought before the court.

This rule gives a judge more discretion than either the literal or the golden rule. This rule requires the court to look to what the law was before the legislation was passed in order to discover what gap or mischief the legislation was intended to cover.

An example of the use of the mischief rule is found in the case of Corkery v Carpenter (1951). In 1951 Shane Corkery was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for being drunk in charge of a bicycle in public. The bicycle was clearly a form of transport and therefore the user was correctly charged.

The mischief rule was established in Heydon’s Case where it was held that the mischief rule should only be applied where there is ambiguity in the statute. Under the mischief rule the court’s role is to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.

Meaning and use In applying the rule, the court is essentially asking what the mischief was that the previous law did not cover, which Parliament was seeking to remedy when it passed the law now being reviewed by the court.

The main advantage of The Mischief Rule is that it closes loopholes in the law and allows laws to develop. The main disadvantage is that it creates a crime after the event has taken place, which can be seen in the Smith v Hughes (1960) case.

Mischief.—Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits …

The mischief rule was established in Heydon’s Case. In Re Sussex Peerage, it was held that the mischief rule should only be applied where there is ambiguity in the statute. Under the mischief rule the court’s role is to suppress the mischief the Act is aimed at and advance the remedy.

Mischief means—Voluntarily Cause injury or loss to someone. The Mischief Rule in the content of interpretation means-to prevents the misuse of provisions of the statute. 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.

Statutes are required to be so construed that there is no place for Mischief. Maxwell also says the same that—it is the duty of Courts regarding the interpretation of statutes that they should do construction in such a way that mischief get no place in it. (Interpretation of Statutes: Maxwell).

They remodelled the statute, by taking things out and putting things in, in order to fit the “mischief” and “defect” as they had found them. Modern courts apply the rule in a more restricted manner, and generally with a greater regard for the integrity of the statutes which they are interpreting.