Rules of Statutory Interpretation: Literal, Golden, Mischief, and Purposive Approach

This report explains and evaluates the different methods used by the court for interpreting statutes, including the Literal Rule, Golden Rule, Mischief Rule, and Purposive Approach. It also provides examples of how these rules are applied in different cases. The report also discusses aids to statutory interpretation and their role in removing ambiguity from the law.

Legal System

Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
The rules of Statutory Interpretation..........................................................................................2
The Literal Rule.....................................................................................................................2
The Golden Rule....................................................................................................................3
The Mischief Rule..................................................................................................................3
The Purposive Approach........................................................................................................4
Aids to Statutory Interpretation..............................................................................................4
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................5
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................6
Page 1

Introduction
Statutes are referred as legislation or the Acts of Parliament; they are also called the laws
made by the Parliament. While providing judgement in cases, the court has to interpret
statutes in order to ensure that their judgement is based on valid laws. Some amount of
interpretation is required to be conducted by the court when a case involves a statute. This
report will focus on explaining and evaluating different methods which are used by the court
for interpreting statutes. Furthermore, different cases will be analysed in the report for
understanding how the court interpret statutes.
The rules of Statutory Interpretation
There are a number of rules which are used by the court while interpreting statutes. It is to
mention here that the rules used by the court for statutory interpretation are not developed by
the parliament, instead, the court develops them for understanding the object of the law. The
Interpretation Act 1978 provides provisions regarding basic definitions regarding the
interpretation of the law; other than these definitions, the court has developed their rules in
order to interpret statutes1. Following are different rules which are used by the court for an
interpretation of statutes.
The Literal Rule
This is the first rule which is used by the court for an interpretation of statutes. Under this
rule, the judge gives words of the statute natural or ordinary meaning without putting a gloss
on the words in order to understand the meaning of the statute. In Sussex Peerage Case2,
Tindal CJ had giving a leading statement regarding the implementation of the literal rule in
which he provided that the laws which are passed by the parliament should be constructed
based on the intention of the parliament. If the words of the law are unambiguous and precise,
then the court should explain such words in their natural and ordinary sense3. In R v Harris4
case, the court provided that the defendant bit of victim’s nose whereas the law impose a
criminal penalty on stabbing, cutting or wounding a person. Based on the literal rule it held
1 Victoria Nourse, 'A Decision Theory Of Statutory Interpretation: Legislative History By The Rules' (2012) 122
Yale LJ.
2 [1844] 11 CI&Fin 85
3 Nathan Fawkes, 'Confessions of A Co-Accused As Exculpatory Evidence' (2014) 16 U. Notre Dame Austl. L.
Rev.
4 [1836] 7 C & P 446
Page 2

that biting a person does not include the definition of law. Thus, the claim made against the
defendant was quashed. In the case of Whitely v Chappel5, the court rejected a claim against
the defendant based on the literal rule because he used a vote of a dead man whereas the law
considers an offence to impersonate an individual who has voting rights. In this rule, the
judge gives excessive emphasis on the words of the statute rather than focus on purpose of
the law widely. The emphasis on the literal meaning of a law assumes that there is
unattainable perfection in the draftsmanship and this rule ignores the limitation of the
language.
The Golden Rule
This rule is applies in a case when the meaning of the law become absurd due to applying the
literal rule. In this rule, the main focus is on the secondary meaning of the statute as given in
the judgement of River Wear Commissioners v Adamson6 case. In the judgement of Grey v
Pearson7 case, Lord Wensleydale provided that the statute should be interpreted as per the
grammatical and ordinary sense unless it would result in absurdity or inconsistency in the rest
of the instrument. In such case, the grammatical and ordinary meaning of the statute must be
modified by the court in order to avoid absurdity and inconsistency in the law, but no farther.
In the judgement of R v Allen8 case, the court held that the word ‘marry’ should be interpreted
as completing the marriage ceremony. Another example was given in Adler v George9 case in
which the court applied the golden rule by stating that it would be absurd if a person is held
liable for being near a prohibited place rather than actually in it. This rule did not provide a
clear meaning for the test in order to understand whether absurdity or inconsistency exists or
not10. It means that the judge evaluates whether the law is absurd or not or whether it is
inconsistency with the general meaning of the statute.
The Mischief Rule
It is one of the oldest rules of statutory interpretation which was established in the Heydon’s
Case11. The rule provided that true interpretation of all statutes requires consideration of four
things which include:
5 [1868] LR 4 QB 147
6 [1876-77] L.R. 2 App Cas 743
7 [1857] 6 HL Cas 61
8 [1872] LR 1 CCR 367
9 [1964] 2 QB 7
10 Nathalie Hofmann, 'Interpretation Rules And Good Faith As Obstacles To The UK's Ratification Of The
CISG And To The Harmonization Of Contract Law In Europe' (2010) 22 Pace Int'l L. Rev.
11 [1584] EWHC Exch J36
Page 3

1. consideration of the common law which exists before implementing the act
2. the defect and mischief in the common law
3. remedy issued by the Parliament for curing the mischief in the common law
4. the true purpose of such remedy12
This rule provides that the role of the judge is to suppress the mischief and advance the
remedy. In the judgement of Smith v Hughes13 case, the court applied this rule by stating that
although the defendants were running a business of prostitution from a private place which
was under the literal meaning of the law but it mischief the aim of the Act based on which
they held liable. The court also applied the mischief rule in Elliot v Grey14 case in which it
was held that the car parked on the road is considered as using the road and it represents a
hazard to the public based on which insurance is required.
The Purposive Approach
European Court of Justice uses this method due to lack of use of the literal rule because there
are several languages and their translation is not exactly the same15. Generally, this method is
used by domestic judges while applying EU laws as given in the case of Maunsell v Olins16.
In this case, Lord Simon held that the court should put itself in the shoes of the lawmaker to
understand the objective of implanting such law in order to understand its meaning.
Aids to Statutory Interpretation
These aids assist judges in interpreting the law, and they are divided into two categories.
Internal Aids
 Long title of the law
 Explanatory notes
 Other sections
 Definition section
External Aids
 Textbooks
 Case laws
12 O Gaydulin, 'Common Sense Interpretation In English Case Law.' [2017] Law Rev. Kyiv UL.
13 [1960] 1 WLR 830
14 [1960] 1 QB 367
15 Caleb Nelson, Statutory Interpretation (Foundation Press Thomson/West 2011).
16 [1975] AC 373
Page 4

 Dictionaries
 Academic writings
 Law commission reports
Conclusion
In conclusion, these are general rules which are used by the court for an interpretation of the
statute. The court uses these rules because sometimes the words of the law are simple and
easy to understand whereas in other times the language of laws are vague or ambiguous based
on which it is difficult for the court to evaluate whether such law applies in the particular case
or not. Thus, these rules assist in removing ambiguity from the law and assist the court in
understanding its true meaning.
Page 5

Bibliography
Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7
Elliot v Grey [1960] 1 QB 367
Fawkes N, 'Confessions of A Co-Accused as Exculpatory Evidence' (2014) 16 U. Notre
Dame Austl. L. Rev.
Gaydulin O, 'Common Sense Interpretation In English Case Law.' [2017] Law Rev. Kyiv UL
Grey v Pearson [1857] 6 HL Cas 61
Heydon’s Case [1584] EWHC Exch J36
Hofmann N, 'Interpretation Rules And Good Faith As Obstacles To The UK's Ratification Of
The CISG And To The Harmonization Of Contract Law In Europe' (2010) 22 Pace Int'l L.
Rev.
Maunsell v Olins [1975] AC 373
Nelson C, Statutory Interpretation (Foundation Press Thomson/West 2011)
Nourse V, 'A Decision Theory Of Statutory Interpretation: Legislative History By The Rules'
(2012) 122 Yale LJ
R v Allen [1872] LR 1 CCR 367
R v Harris [1836] 7 C & P 446
River Wear Commissioners v Adamson [1876-77] L.R. 2 App Cas 743
Smith v Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830
Sussex Peerage Case [1844] 11 CI&Fin 85
Whitely v Chappel [1868] LR 4 QB 147
Page 6