not provide. This constitutes the “true reason” for the remedy that parliament
proposes in the statute. Third, it had to discern the “remedy” which the
Parliament decreed to fix the problem, that is, what Parliament “resolved and
appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth”.
These done, a court had to interpret the statute by choosing a meaning which
would eliminate the problem –
this meaning would “suppress the mischief”,
which was often pro privato commodo, that is, it entailed a purely private or
personal gain.
128
The mischief had to be suppressed directly, but also
indirectly by eliminating “subtle inventions and evasions”.
129
The proposed interpretation would invigorate the statute. It would “advance
the remedy”, and so “add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to
the true intent of the makers of the Act”. In consequence, the statute would
now operate pro bono publico, that is, for the public good.
130
Statutory Rule
A jurisdiction may have a rule that requires courts to interpret a statute by
reference to the policy that underlies it. As just explained, this same effect is
also urged by the common law rule of interpretation, the mischief rule,
although this does not bind a court in the unyielding way that a statute does.
Australia provides an example of a statutory rule of this nature. In all Australian
jurisdictions there is a statutory rule determining how courts must interpret a
statute. They must do so by seeking to bring about the effect sought by the
underlying policy. This effect is officially designated the “purpose or object”
of the statute. This rule takes much the same form and effect in each
jurisdiction. It is referred to, here and generally,
as the purpose and object
rule.
131
___________________
128
Heydon's Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a, 7b
129
Heydon's Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a, 7b
130
Heydon's Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a, 7b
131
The full list of this legislation for Australian jurisdictions is the following –
Acts
Interpretation Act 1901
(Cth) s15AA, Acts Interpretation Act 1954
(Qld) s14A,
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s33, Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) s35, Acts
Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) s22, Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (Tas) s8A, Interpretation
Act 1984 (WA) s18, Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s138 replacing Interpretation Act 1967
(ACT) s11A, Interpretation Act 1979
(NI) s10C, Interpretation Act (NT) s62B. Section
22(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) provides that s22 does not operate to
create or extend any criminal liability. Section 21 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915
(SA) and s8 of the Interpretation Act 1984
(WA) reinforce the object and purpose
provision. In these provisions, the policy underlying a statute is referred to as its
“purpose and object”. To facilitate this method of interpretation the Interpretation
 |
 |
 |