The Mischief Rule: Explanation Of The Common Law

Mischief rule is the oldest approach among others. Mischief rule is one of the principles used to interpret the statute. This rule is applied by the courts to read through the whole statute in order to seek the truly intention that the law makers have. In other words, the courts will look at the “mischief” that was intended by the legislatures when the words in the statute are not unambiguous and plain. Hence, the purpose of using this rule is to identify the mischief and defect in statute and want to implement the remedy for the people involved under the law . Mischief rule is the most flexible rule of interpretation of any act yet it is restricted to use the previous common law to determine the mischief in act. In the Heydon’s case, a religious …show more content…
The provision of this act was argued in the case of “Smith V Hughes”. In that case, the issue was whether a woman who stood at balcony and hissed at men who was passing by her was found guilty of the offence under the provision of the act? The court considered the mischief rule to decide the case by saying that this act was intended to clean up the street for the people to walk in the streets without being molested or solicited by common prostitutes. Based on the intention by the lawmakers, the prostitutes who were either in streets, doorways or balconies would be charged under this act12. Hence, the mischief rule is applied by court when the circumstances which caused the acts to be passed are well-known. However, there are some limitations happened when the mischiefs in particular acts aimed by courts are not …show more content…
The evidence used by the public prosecutor was two medical certificates from a medical officer given by the complainant. However, the medical officer was not requested to present in court and no copy of the report had been supplied to the appellant. The court held that the provision of Section 399(i) of Criminal Procedure Code which requires the Public Prosecutor to deliver a copy of report to the accused not less than 10 days before the commencement of the trial should be applied . Even though the prosecution was prosecuted by private prosecutor but it has to comply with the above provision and the provision was not complied in this case. As a result, decision would be unjust. Hence, the reports were inadmissible in evidence and therefore the order binding over the appellant must be quashed. The court also found that the language of the law must be modified to meet what the intention of the law-makers is. In my opinion, the mischief rule is applied in this case to seek the intention of parliament to remedy the mischief in the law which the parliament is supposed to draft properly by changing the words in the provision of the