it was observed that judges can apply in statutory interpretation in order to discover Parliament's intention.
Legislative intent is determined by examining secondary sources, such as committee reports, treatises, law review articles and corresponding statutes.
The judge held that as the intention of the act was to cover the mischief of harassment from prostitutes, the quoted wording did apply, and the defendants were found guilty.
The rule was first set out in Heydon's Case [1584] 76 ER 637 3 CO REP 7a,[3] where the court held that four points should be taken into consideration: For the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law), four things are to be discerned and considered: 1st.
And then the office of all the Judges is to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief, and pro privato commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico.In the century in which it was created, and for some time thereafter, the mischief rule was used in a legislative environment very different from the one which has prevailed in the past two centuries.
Then also, in the time of Heydon's Case, the judges paid more attention to the "spirit" of the law than to the letter.
[4] Modern courts apply the rule in a more restricted manner, and with a greater regard for the integrity of the statutes which they are interpreting.