For Literal Rule. the Judgess will merely look at the grammatical significance of words to construe. If the words are clear and unambiguous. even though the consequence makes bunk of the jurisprudence. they must be followed. In R v Judge of the City of London Court ( 1892 ) . Lord Esher said “If the words of an Act are clear. so you must follow them. even though they lead to manifest absurdness. The tribunal has nil to make with the inquiry whether the legislative assembly has committed an absurdity” . Fisher V Bell ( 1960 ) gave us an good illustration. It is an offense to offer for sale flick knives to public. The suspect had flick knife on show in store window with monetary value label. But the suspect was non found guilty as exposing the knife was simply an “invitation to treat” but non an “offer” .
For Golden Rule. it is a alteration of the Literal Rule. It is used when the actual reading fails to bring forth a feasible consequence and produces an equivocal significance. The tribunal will reject the absurd consequence and modify natural significance of words. Professor Michael Zander ( 1993 ) has described this regulation as “an unpredictable safety-valve to allow the tribunals to get away from some of the more unpalatable effects of the actual rule” . In Rex v Sigsworth ( 1935 ) Ch 89. The suspect murdered female parent and the female parent had no will. The suspect was merely following of family. However. the tribunal decided that a boy who had murdered his female parent could non inherit her estate. Golden Rule is applied to modify words to avoid an absurdness or to avoid a abhorrent state of affairs. The purpose was non to profit the liquidator.
For Mischief Rule. it attempts to find the legislators’ purpose. The tribunals look at the preamble of regulation and happen out the “mischief” that the Legislative Council was seeking to command. However. it should merely be used to find the true purpose of the legislative assembly if the words of the statute law were equivocal or ambiguous. It was foremost used in Heydon’s instance ( 1584 ) . The tribunals are looking at what the common jurisprudence was before the legislative act was passed. what job or ‘mischief’ was that the common jurisprudence did non cover. what redress has the legislative assembly decided and provided. and what the true ground was for the redress. In Smith V Hughes ( 1960 ) . . The mischief attack gave a more reasonable result so that of the actual attack.
It seems to hold a sequence like a hierarchal order in using the regulations. However. contradictory consequences will come out by using different regulations. Therefore. there is no such hierarchy order.