Mischief rule:
"Four things are to be considered and discussed:;
(i) First is 'what was the common law earlier than the making of the Act?'
(ii) is 'what was the mischief and defect for that the common law did not offer'
(iii) is 'what remedy has Parliament appointed resolved to cure the disease?'
(iv) and forth is 'what is the true reason for the remedy?' Judges shall.... make such construction as shall suppress the advance and the remedy".
However a statute will only be construed in signify with this rule whether its construction in accordance relates to the literal rule would fail to suppress or the mischief or punish. There an example like a case of SMITH v HUGHES whether it was held that a prostitute who attracted the consideration of passers from a balcony window above the street had solicited in a street within Section 1(1) of the English Street Offences Act, 1959. Therefore the judge stated as follows: as;
"I approach the issue through considering like as what is the mischief aimed at through this Act. Everybody knows that this was an Act intended to clean up the streets then to enable people to walk along the streets without being molested or solicited through common prostitutes".
However viewed into way that the actual place from whether a prostitute attracted the attention of somebody walking in the street did not matter as well as she will be deemed to have solicited in the street.