Describe The Different Rules (8)

Question 1

Literal RULE

Answer 1

What it is:
• Judges use the exact words written in the law.
• They do not try to guess what Parliament meant, just what the words say.
• Even if the result is strange or unfair, they still apply the literal meaning.

✅ Why it’s used:
• Respects Parliament’s authority – judges don’t change the law.
• Based on the idea that words should speak for themselves.

✅ Examples:
1. Whiteley v Chappell (1868)
• A man used the name of a dead person to vote.
• The law said it was an offence to impersonate “any person entitled to vote”.
• The court said the man was not guilty – a dead person is not entitled to vote.
• Absurd result – the law was clearly meant to stop this kind of trick.
2. London & North Eastern Railway v Berriman (1946)
• A railway worker died while oiling the tracks.
• Law said a lookout was needed only if he was “repairing or relaying”.
• Court said oiling wasn’t “repairing”, so his widow got no compensation.
• Unfair outcome, but the judges stuck to the exact words.

✅ Pros:
• Keeps judges from making law.
• Encourages certainty and predictability.

❌ Cons:
• Can lead to silly or unfair outcomes.
• Doesn’t always reflect what Parliament actually meant.

Question 2

GOLDEN RULE

Answer 2

Golden Rule (Fixing the absurd results from the literal rule)

✅ What it is:
• A modified version of the literal rule.
• Judges still start with the literal meaning, but can change it slightly to avoid absurd or unfair results.

✅ Two approaches:
1. Narrow approach – when a word has more than one meaning, the judge chooses the one that avoids absurdity.
2. Broad approach – if a word only has one meaning but would lead to a bad result, the judge changes it slightly.

✅ Examples:
1. Adler v George (1964) – Narrow approach
• Law said it was an offence to obstruct soldiers “in the vicinity” of a base.
• Man was inside the base.
• Court said “in the vicinity” should include “inside” – otherwise he wouldn’t be guilty.
• Avoided a ridiculous loophole.
2. Re Sigsworth (1935) – Broad approach
• A man murdered his mother who died without a will.
• The law said her next of kin (her “issue”) should inherit.
• Court said he couldn’t inherit – you shouldn’t benefit from your own crime.
• Literal meaning changed to prevent an unjust result.

✅ Pros:
• Avoids silly or unjust outcomes.
• Still respects Parliament but adds common sense.

❌ Cons:
• Judges still don’t have much freedom.
• Can be unclear when to use it – depends on the judge.

Question 3

MISCHIEF RUle

Answer 3

🟢 3. Mischief Rule (Fixing the problem the law was meant to solve)

✅ What it is:
• Judges look at the “mischief” (problem) the law was trying to fix.
• Instead of focusing only on the words, they look at why Parliament made the law and what they were trying to stop.
• First explained in Heydon’s Case (1584) – judges must find:
1. What the old law was,
2. What problem (mischief) the old law had,
3. What the new law wanted to fix.

✅ Examples:
1. Smith v Hughes (1960)
• Law banned prostitutes “soliciting in a street”.
• Women were calling from windows, not physically in the street.
• Court said they were still guilty – the law was meant to clean up the streets, so being visible from the street counted.
• Focused on what the law was trying to fix.
2. Royal College of Nursing v DHSS (1981)
• Law said only a doctor could carry out abortions.
• Nurses were doing part of the abortion using a new method.
• Court said this was legal because Parliament’s aim was to make abortions safe, not limit them to doctors.
• Solved a modern problem Parliament hadn’t thought about in 1967.

✅ Pros:
• Allows law to be interpreted in a fair and modern way.
• Helps keep the law up-to-date with new problems and situations.

❌ Cons:
• Gives judges more power – some say this goes against democracy.
• Judges may guess Parliament’s intention incorrectly.