The Mischief Rule Flashcards
(11 cards)
What is the central aim of the mischief rule?
A. To discover and correct the gap in the law that Parliament intended to address
B. To rewrite laws using judicial discretion
C. To interpret statutes solely by their grammatical meaning
D. To refer all ambiguous cases back to Parliament
A. To discover and correct the gap in the law that Parliament intended to address
Explanation: The mischief rule is designed to identify the “mischief” (problem) that the Act sought to resolve and apply the law accordingly.
Which case established the mischief rule?
A. Heydon’s Case
B. R v Allen
C. Smith v Hughes
D. Adler v George
A. Heydon’s Case
Explanation: Heydon’s Case (1584) outlined the four key questions judges should ask when applying the mischief rule.
Which of the following is a key advantage of using the mischief rule?
A. It prevents judges from interpreting beyond the statute
B. It ensures words are always given their strict meaning
C. It limits judicial discretion to criminal law
D. It allows the law to adapt to social and technological changes
D. It allows the law to adapt to social and technological changes
Explanation: The mischief rule is flexible, enabling courts to ensure statutes remain effective as society evolves.
A judge is trying to identify what gap in the law existed before the statute was enacted. Which interpretative approach is the judge using?
A. Literal rule
B. Mischief rule
C. Golden rule
D. Linguistic presumption
B. Mischief rule
Explanation: Identifying the defect in the old law is one of the four steps of the mischief rule as set out in Heydon’s Case.
A statute prohibits “soliciting in a public street.” A woman is found soliciting from a window above a street. What rule did the court apply in Smith v Hughes to convict her?
A. Mischief rule
B. Literal rule
C. Golden rule
D. Ejusdem generis
A. Mischief rule
Explanation: The court looked at the mischief — harassment of the public — and applied the law even though she wasn’t technically “in the street.”
What is a common criticism of the mischief rule?
A. It is rarely used in criminal law
B. It relies too heavily on extrinsic materials
C. It gives too much power to Parliament
D. It risks judicial law-making by prioritising intent over wording
D. It risks judicial law-making by prioritising intent over wording
Explanation: Critics argue it allows judges to read in their own views about what Parliament intended, bypassing literal meaning.
A court uses Hansard to understand what issue Parliament was trying to address when passing a law. This is most consistent with:
A. Literal rule
B. Golden rule
C. Mischief rule
D. Noscitur a sociis
C. Mischief rule
Explanation: The mischief rule allows judges to look beyond the words, including legislative history, to identify Parliament’s objective.
Which of the following best describes the role of Heydon’s Case in modern interpretation?
A. It provides a rigid template for all interpretation
B. It supports purposive interpretation through historical context
C. It limits courts to use internal aids only
D. It is no longer relevant after the Human Rights Act
B. It supports purposive interpretation through historical context
Explanation: Though old, Heydon’s Case forms the foundation of purposive and mischief interpretation, especially when clarifying legislative intent.
A statute is outdated and doesn’t mention online conduct. A judge interprets it to include internet behaviour to address cyber-harassment. What rule likely justifies this?
A. Literal rule
B. Mischief rule
C. Golden rule
D. Expressio unius
B. Mischief rule
Explanation: The judge is applying the law to a new context in line with the problem Parliament aimed to solve, which fits the mischief rule.
A judge refuses to apply the mischief rule because the statute’s wording is clear and unambiguous. What principle is the judge applying instead?
A. Mischief rule
B. Purposive approach
C. Literal rule
D. Golden rule
C. Literal rule
Explanation: Courts usually apply the mischief rule only where ambiguity or a legal gap exists — otherwise, they follow the literal rule.
Which of the following scenarios would be least appropriate for applying the mischief rule?
A. A statute is outdated and causes a legal loophole
B. A law’s words are ambiguous and produce conflicting outcomes
C. A statute clearly states Parliament’s intent and language is precise
D. The court is asked to interpret new technologies not foreseen by the statute
C. A statute clearly states Parliament’s intent and language is precise
Explanation: The mischief rule is not used where there is no ambiguity or defect to address — it is not a license to override clear language.
