Explain and illustrate with cases the various judicial approaches to interpreting an act of parliament
The mischief rule: The courts have regard to the purpose of the Act, and interpret it in such a way as to carry out that purpose The literal rule: This is where the intention of parliament is considered to be contained in the words of the act. The golden rule: If the usual interpretation results in consequences which are absurd, and Parliament could not have intended them, then a secondary meaning can be used. ... Cases which indicate differences between the Mischief Rule and the Literal Rule are: Mandla v Dowell-Lee, 1983. ... As the race relations act makes no mention of religion, and Sikhs are identified only by a common religion, no discrimination had occurred. ... An act of parliament stated that people incorrectly completing their Tax returns were subject to a penalty “Treble the Tax that ought to be charged under this act”. ... It is better to think of them as different approaches to problems of interpretation, and the judge tends to select the most suitable, using the literal rule first, then the mischief rule and finally the golden rule. The judge may use all aspects of the act of parliament when interpreting statutes e. ... Long title of the act, Preamble, Marginal Notes, Punctuation. If an act of parliament is intended to give to effect to an international treaty, then the judge can refer to the original treaty. ... Acts are often a framework, which sets out the intention of Parliament, and an outline for delegated legislation.