The Golden Rule, Mischief Rule, and Literal Rule

Statutory Interpretation: The Golden Rule, Mischief Rule, and Literal Rule

Introduction

Statutory interpretation is one of the core functions of the judiciary. Judges interpret Acts of Parliament to apply them fairly and accurately in real-life cases. Since legislation cannot predict every situation, judges use established rules of interpretation to determine Parliament’s true intention. The three main rules are the Literal Rule, the Golden Rule, and the Mischief Rule. Each has a distinct purpose and method, but they are often applied in a specific order depending on the context of the case.

The Literal Rule

The Literal Rule is the starting point of statutory interpretation. Under this rule, judges interpret the words of a statute in their plain, ordinary, and grammatical meaning, even if the result seems harsh or unfair. The court does not seek to uncover what Parliament might have intended beyond the words used.

A classic example is Whiteley v Chappell (1868), where a statute made it an offence to impersonate "any person entitled to vote." The defendant impersonated a dead person, who was clearly not "entitled to vote." The court applied the literal meaning and found the defendant not guilty, even though this interpretation frustrated the spirit of the law.

Another example is Fisher v Bell (1961), where displaying a flick knife in a shop window was ruled not an offer for sale under the literal interpretation of contract law principles.

The Literal Rule is applied first because it upholds parliamentary sovereignty—judges are not meant to rewrite the law but to apply it as enacted.

The Golden Rule

The Golden Rule is a modification of the Literal Rule. It is used when a literal interpretation would lead to an absurd, unjust, or impractical outcome that Parliament could not have intended. The court can then alter the meaning slightly to avoid absurdity.

There are two approaches to the Golden Rule:

• Narrow approach: The court chooses between two possible literal meanings to avoid absurdity.

• Broad approach: The court modifies the literal meaning to prevent an unacceptable result.

In Adler v George (1964), the defendant was charged under a law prohibiting obstruction "in the vicinity of" a military base. He argued he was inside the base, not in the vicinity. The court applied the Golden Rule to avoid absurdity and held that being inside the base counted as being in the vicinity.

Similarly, in Re Sigsworth (1935), a son murdered his mother and stood to inherit her estate. The court used the Golden Rule to prevent the murderer from benefiting from his crime.