- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
- Posts
Road traffic Regulations provide that ‘it is illegal to drive on the pavement’.John is found riding a bicycle on the pavement. He is charged with contravening the Regulations. He argues that he is not driving but he was riding. The court finds him guilty of contravening the regulations.
what rule of statutory interpretation is reflected by the judgement of the court?
A. literal rule
B. golden rule
C. eiusdem generis rule
D. mischief rule
I choose A but suggested solutions says D. Please assist sir, I don’t understand why D.This is similar to the case Gardner v Sevenoaks where the “mischief” was storing film in a premise that was not secure from fire
The mischief that the law (the Cinematographs Act) was aiming to prevent was the unnecessary damage that fire would cause. It was NOT a law passed so that film would be stored in a comfortable ambient environment
Even more similar are recent cases of riding a motorised bicycle whilst drunk and riding a horse on a public highway whilst drunk
The 1872 Licensing Act, much of which has been superseded, still remains some force.
The law still creates an offence of being “drunk in public and of being drunk in charge of a carriage” – since reinterpreted to include bicycles and horses
Clearly, it’s the mischief rule that reflects the judgement by the Court
- The topic ‘statutory interpretation’ is closed to new replies.