Royal College of Nursing v Department of Health and Social Security [1981]
Share
Royal College of Nursing v Department of Health and Social Security [1981] 2 WLR 279 is an English public law case that concerned the application of the mischief rule of statutory interpretation. This rule involves examining the problem or defect in the law (mischief) that the statute aimed to address, providing insight into Parliament's intention.
The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 criminalised abortion, but the Abortion Act 1967 allowed termination by a registered medical practitioner. Initially, abortions were performed surgically by doctors. As medical advancements enabled drug-based abortions administered by nurses, a government circular permitted nurses, under doctor supervision, to carry out such procedures. The Royal College of Nursing challenged the circular's correctness, seeking a declaration that nurses performing drug-based abortions was unlawful.
The House of Lords ruled that nurses could lawfully conduct drug-based abortion procedures under doctor supervision. The mischief rule played a pivotal role in the interpretation. The mischief Parliament sought to remedy was backstreet abortions. Lord Diplock emphasised the Act's purpose of broadening lawful abortion grounds and ensuring skilled and hygienic procedures. He clarified that the phrase "terminated by a registered medical practitioner" did not necessitate the doctor's hands-on involvement but required adherence to the doctor's prescribed treatment under their supervision.
Lord Wilberforce dissented, emphasising caution in extending meanings, particularly when legislation aimed to be restrictive. He argued against the court filling gaps and supplying answers not found in the Act's terms.
The mischief rule, which can be traced back to Heydon's Case [1584], guides the courts to consider pre-existing law, identify the mischief requiring correction, understand the intended remedy, and discern Parliament's purpose. It goes beyond literal interpretation, providing a holistic view of legislative intent. In this case, the rule clarified the scope of lawful abortion procedures, aligning with the broader objectives of the Abortion Act 1967.
The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 criminalised abortion, but the Abortion Act 1967 allowed termination by a registered medical practitioner. Initially, abortions were performed surgically by doctors. As medical advancements enabled drug-based abortions administered by nurses, a government circular permitted nurses, under doctor supervision, to carry out such procedures. The Royal College of Nursing challenged the circular's correctness, seeking a declaration that nurses performing drug-based abortions was unlawful.
The House of Lords ruled that nurses could lawfully conduct drug-based abortion procedures under doctor supervision. The mischief rule played a pivotal role in the interpretation. The mischief Parliament sought to remedy was backstreet abortions. Lord Diplock emphasised the Act's purpose of broadening lawful abortion grounds and ensuring skilled and hygienic procedures. He clarified that the phrase "terminated by a registered medical practitioner" did not necessitate the doctor's hands-on involvement but required adherence to the doctor's prescribed treatment under their supervision.
Lord Wilberforce dissented, emphasising caution in extending meanings, particularly when legislation aimed to be restrictive. He argued against the court filling gaps and supplying answers not found in the Act's terms.
The mischief rule, which can be traced back to Heydon's Case [1584], guides the courts to consider pre-existing law, identify the mischief requiring correction, understand the intended remedy, and discern Parliament's purpose. It goes beyond literal interpretation, providing a holistic view of legislative intent. In this case, the rule clarified the scope of lawful abortion procedures, aligning with the broader objectives of the Abortion Act 1967.
