The House of Commons and The House of Lords make up two thirds of Parliament. There is a third power, The Judiciary, which is a totally separate body that is in place to implement and enforce the legislature that Parliament creates. This has to be a completely stand-alone establishment with no ties or connection to Parliament. Without this Separation of Powers it is possible that the public may not get a fair and impartial trial because Parliament could have to much influence over the judges. This in turn could give the Government to much power (they are often the ones, which propose a new law to Parliament) and we may become a tyrannical society. The Courts must follow the laws of Parlia

Following the literal rule is justified because the courts are supposed to operate totally independently from Parliament, so they should, in theory not have any room for interpretation of the Act. The Act has been drafted by experts and should do exactly what it sets out to do. To stray from the literal interpretation of the Act would be blurring the boundaries of the separate powers. However the complexity of the English language can sometimes cause problems when trying to follow the literal rule. The case of Whiteley V Chappel 1868 is an example of this. The defendant was charged with "impersonating another person entitled to vote" he had stolen their voting cards of lots of people who were dead and use their voting rights. The problem occurs because dead people are not entitled to vote at all so by following the literal ruling you effectively cancel out the very offence for which the Act was written. The defendant was found not guilty which was ridiculous verdict, brought about by following the text of the Act so closely.

 What was the true reason for the remedy?

 What was the common law before the Act was passed?

 What was the mischief for which the common law did not provide?

The rule allows the courts to look at the Act from a wider perspective and decide what exactly Parliament meant when they wrote it and the reasons it was passed. During the case of Smith V Hughes in1960 the Mischief Rule was used in the following way. "To solicit for sex in a street or public place" is a criminal offence, Smith has charged with this offence however she was working from inside her own home. Literally she was not on the street or a public place however the judge chose to look at the mischief for which the Act was passed and she was found guilty because the Act was written to outlaw prostitution in its entirety.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Mischief Rule, Whiteley Chappel, Golden Rule, House Lords, Separation Powers, Act Whosoever, Courts Judges, Abortion Act, Pepper Hart, Act Act, mischief rule, literal rule, found guilty, purposive approach, common law, golden rule, interpretation act, found guilty offence, act passed, law parliament, courts follow, courts follow laws, rule mischief rule,
Approximate Word count = 1423
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)