Explain the different rules and approaches taken by judges when Essay

Explain the different rules and approaches taken by judges when interpreting an Act of Parliament, giving examples from case law, and critically analyse their advantages and disadvantages - Essay Example These rules were developed many years ago in the English law and have been used through the doctrines of stare decisis and judicial precedent. Historically, there are various reasons why there may be need for interpreting statutes. One reason is that people making and drafting the laws may, sometimes fail to give meaning to certain words that they are necessarily implied. In other cases, the rules may be described by broad terms and judges have the discretion of give meanings depending on the prevailing situations. In other instances, certain words may be ambiguous. On the same note, development of situations and prevailing circumstances are often unforeseeable hence need for interpretation of the situations. Lastly, certain errors may occur during drafting and inadequate wordings which may call for interpretation by the judges (TOLLEY 2009). This rule received its foundation in the 16th century in the Heydon’s case( 1584). The judge relayed several rules that should be used for mischief rule to be effective. The courts consider the common law before the enactment of the legislation. Secondly, the courts normally consider the defect that the inception of the law was supposed to tackle. Thirdly, the courts consider the remedy that parliament had in mind while making the law. Fourthly, the judges have a duty to ensure that they recognise the significance of the remedy and make any necessary rulings that would counter the mischief that the law sought to rectify (SPICER et al 2006). During the formulation of the mischief rule, most of the laws that the court relied on were common law developed through precedent, and not parliament legislations. In that regard the use of the concept was still new and has changed over time. In Smith v Hughes of (1960), the court deliberated on this issue. In this case, contrary to the provisions of the law that prohibited soliciting for prostitution within premises and streets, the