Question 1

Is the mischief rule the same as the purposive approach?

Accepted Answer

No, they are distinct, though related. The mischief rule is older and narrower, focusing on identifying the specific 'mischief' or problem in the old common law that the Act was passed to remedy. The purposive approach is more modern and broader; it asks what the overall purpose or intention of Parliament was in passing the Act, even if it wasn't to fix a specific pre-existing legal defect. The purposive approach is about achieving the 'spirit' of the law, while the mischief rule is about fixing a specific historical 'disease'.

Question 2

Can judges just pick any rule of interpretation they like?

Accepted Answer

While judges have a choice, the decision is not arbitrary or based on personal preference. The modern judicial trend, heavily influenced by the Human Rights Act 1998 and the UK's historical ties to EU law, strongly favours a purposive approach. However, the literal rule remains the theoretical starting point due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. A judge must always justify their chosen approach, explaining why a literal interpretation is insufficient or why the purpose of the Act requires a different reading. The choice is a matter of reasoned legal judgment, not random selection.

Question 3

Does the case of Pepper v Hart mean judges can always use Hansard to find Parliament's intention?

Accepted Answer

No, its use is highly restricted. The ruling in *Pepper v Hart* created a very limited exception to the rule that parliamentary debates could not be used as an aid. A judge can only refer to Hansard if the legislation is ambiguous, obscure, or its literal meaning leads to an absurdity. Furthermore, they can only look at a clear statement made by the minister or promoter of the bill which would resolve that specific ambiguity. It is a tool of last resort, not a general licence to research parliamentary debates for every case.

Statutory interpretation

What you need to know

Statutory interpretation