Literal, Golden and Mischief Rules: Purposive Approach

The literal rule, golden rule, mischief rule and purposive approach are four ways judges interpret the words of an Act of Parliament. They differ in how far a judge looks beyond the ordinary meaning of those words.

The four approaches

• Literal rule: Give the words their ordinary meaning, even if the result seems inconvenient. The starting point is what Parliament actually wrote.
• Golden rule: Start with the ordinary meaning, but depart from it where applying it would produce an absurd result. The change should go only as far as needed to avoid that result.
• Mischief rule: Ask what problem, or mischief, the previous law failed to deal with. Interpret the new Act so that it addresses that problem.
• Purposive approach: Interpret the words in light of the Act’s overall purpose: what the legislation is intended to achieve.

Worked example

Suppose an Act says, “No vehicles may enter the park.” Imagine it was passed after motor traffic damaged the park’s paths. A literal reading focuses on the ordinary meaning of “vehicles”. A judge using the golden rule might consider whether that reading would lead to an absurd result in a particular case, such as preventing an ambulance from entering during an emergency. The mischief rule directs attention to the earlier problem of damage caused by motor traffic. The purposive approach asks how to interpret the provision in a way that advances the Act’s wider aim, such as protecting the park.

Exam mistake to avoid: Do not treat the mischief rule and purposive approach as identical. Both consider why legislation was made, but the mischief rule focuses on a defect in the previous law, while the purposive approach focuses on the legislation’s overall aim. In an answer, identify the approach and show how it affects the interpretation of the specific words.