“Acts of parliament are called statutes”1.

Although the Parliament makes the statutes, it is left to

the judges to imply the statute to the cases. This is another key area of the common law. Judges
might use aids of interpretation to help interpret the statute. Internal aids (Intrinsic aid) are within
the statute itself, for example, the title of the Act or in the explanatory notes but if internal aids
are not adequate then external aids (Extrinsic aid) such as dictionaries, the judicial precedent or
the Interpretation Act 1978 which provides guidelines to help the judges might be used2. Along
with the aids to interpretation, courts can use also use three basic rules of interpretation as a
guideline:

First is the literal rule, under this rule the court must interpret the statute word for word
regardless of whether it makes sense or not3. For example, in the case Fisher v Bell4 the
defendant had flicker knives on display in his shop. Flicker knives were illegal to sell, hire, offer
to sell or to produce under Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 section 1(1). However,
the literal meaning of the statute was applied, and it was held that the defendant’s act was just an
‘invitation to treat’ and not an ‘offer to sell’. The literal rule can lead to unjust and absurd
decisions, on the contrary, it gives the parliament entire power for lawmaking.

Second is the golden rule, if the use of literal rule results in an absurd conclusion, then the golden
rule is applied which permits the judges to deviate from the literal meaning of the words5. Adler
v George6 is one of the main leading case used for this approach. The defendant was in a
prohibited place, he was charged under the Official Secrets Act 1920 which states that it is an
offence to obstruct a member of armed force ‘in the vicinity’ of any prohibited place. The
defendant argued that he was in the prohibited place and not ‘in the vicinity’. Court held that the
defendant was guilty as it would be absurd to hold someone liable for being near the place and
not in the prohibited place. The golden rule can avoid injustice caused by literal rule.

1
MacIntyre (n 2).
2
Elliott and Quinn (n 3)
3
ibid
4
[1961] 1 QB 394
5
Elliott and Quinn (n 3)
6
[1964] 2 QB 7
The third is the mischief rule, this rule is to be applied when there is ambiguity in the statute. It
was established in Heydon’s case7 in the 16th century. The judges should consider the following
before applying the rule: what the common law was before the Act, what was the problem
common law did not provide, what remedy has the Parliament decided and lastly what was the
reason behind the remedy8. For example, in Smith v Hughes9 the defendant was a prostitute who
stood on the balcony of the house and solicited people passing by in the street for prostitution
purposes. The defendant was charged under section 1(1) of Street Offences Act 1959 which
made it an offence to solicit on the street or public place. The court applied the mischief rule and
held that the defendant was guilty because even though she was not at the street, the solicitation
was aimed at the people on the street. The mischief rule allows flexibility in the interpretation of
the statute.

7
[1584] EWHC Exch J36
8
Elliott and Quinn (n 3)
9
[1960] 1 WLR 830