3 different rules of interpretation

3 different rules of interpretation

1. The literal rule

   • Under this rule courts will give words their plain ordinary or literal meaning even if the outcome isn't sensible. this idea was expressed in the case of R v Judge of the city of London Court 1982

2. The Golden Rule

   • This rule is a modification. The rule starts by looking at the literal meaning by the court is then allowed to avoid an interpretation which would lead to an absurd result
     • The first use of this rule is very narrow and is shown by Lord Reid's comments in Jones v DPP or Adler v George
     • The other use is wider where the words have only one clear meaning but that meaning would lead to a repugnant situation ( a situation which the court feels that using the clear meaning would produce a result which should be allowed e.g. RE sigsworth

3. The mischief rule

   • With the mischief rule the courts look at what the law was before the Act was passed in order to discover what gap or mischief the was intended to cover e.g. Smith v hufges