The in this case, was a very useful source.

The golden rule is used to try and avoid harsh judgement as the words are given their ordinary meaning. Once the literal rule has been applied and the judgement has led to an absurdity, the golden rule would be used to avoid this. In the case Re Sigsworth, the golden rule was applied as the literal rule led to an absurdity. A mother was murdered by her son, but she did not have a will therefore he was going to inherit everything. If the literal rule was applied he would have inherited it all but the court used the golden rule so he was entitled to nothing .Another rule used by the courts is the mischief rule which came from Haydon’s case in the 16th century. This rule focuses on the mischief of the offence and looks for a judgement to remedy it. In the case Corkey v Carpenter, the mischief rule was applied as the defendant was a risk to himself and others. Although it could be argued a bicycle is not a carriage, the judgement came from the mischief and risk involved .The purposive approach is used in the European court of justice and is required to be followed when judges apply EU law. It is a movement from the mischief rule in seeking the purpose of the law. Lord Denning defined the purposive approach stating it focused on the intention of parliament and try to fill in the gaps rather than pulling it apart and making nonsense of it . It was said to be abusing power as a judge, which can go against parliamentary sovereignty stated in the UK’s constitution. Lord Denning did not see it that way, he wanted to look at the bigger picture by identifying parliament’s intention of creating the law.In the case Pepper v Hart, the purposive approach was used. When the judges were trying to discover parliament’s intention they referred to Hansard. Hansard is the recording of parliamentary debates, which in this case, was a very useful source. The statute was silent in regards to a teacher paying tax on a perk he had received so Hansard was used which identified the intention of the act regarding this scenario.  Since this case, Hansard is called upon more often but is it necessary? It can be argued that lawyers may spend too much time and money assessing the recordings according the Lord Mackay. However technology is improving and Hansard can more be found online meaning Lord Mackay’s concerns are less valid .Joining the European Union has affected the UK in a number of ways. First we had a new source of law which meant Parliamentary statutes were no longer the highest law as the EU law is above it. The creation of EU law was limited but now increased in areas such as employment and consumer rightsSecondly in domestic law we have the European Communities Act 1972. Under section 2 (4) it states the UK law should be interpreted and applied subject to EU law being supreme . EU law takes precedence over domestic law if there is a conflict between the two. This was voluntarily agreed to by the UK.When courts are dealing with EU law, if they are faced with a conflict they have to refuse to apply the national law and apply EU law. In the case Factortame (1990)  there was a clear conflict. Within the EU a fisherman was allowed to fish within 12 miles on his own border and beyond that 12 mile the water was shared. A problem occurred when a fishing area entitled to the British became rich with fish. Spanish boats registered with British company, ultimately allowing them to legally fish in this area. To help rectify this situation parliament passed The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 with the intention to prevent other countries from registering boats to fish in British water . Conflict occurred when a Spanish fisherman argued there was no offence as it is EU law that you can set up businesses in any EU country. As previously stated under section 2 (4) of the European communities act, EU law is supreme over national law leading to the merchant shipping act 1988 being abolished.