Statutory interpretation is process of interpreting statutes by the judges. The definition of statutes have had very specific words but indeed the judges would still need the statutory interpretation to help them. The reason of this, even how, the words in the statutes are specific but sometimes the words contains ambiguity and vagueness in words. On top of that, each word could give us different meaning. For example, we can find in the Oxford Dictionary where a word would contain at least one meaning. Hence, without the statutory interpretation, a lot of judges would have trouble in deciding their judgments in deciding a case. This essay will analyse the four rules, intrinsic aids and extrinsic aids and presumptions in the interpretation of statutes.

There are four different rules of interpretation in English law which are the literal rule, the golden rule, the mischief rule and the purposive rule/approach. Each rule take different approaches and some judges prefer to use one rule while other judges prefer another rule.
Traditionally, the English courts have taken a literal approach to the interpretation of statutes. The Literal Rule is the cornerstone of this approach. The literal rule requires the courts to give the words of a statute their plain meaning. It is for a court to interpret Parliament’s intention from what it has actually said – not from what it thinks it meant to say. This can produce some surprising results as, in practice, words seldom have a single plain meaning. The example case of the literal rule can be Whiteley v Chappell (1868-69). It was a statutory offence to impersonate “any person entitled to vote” at an election. The defendant impersonated someone who was on the electoral register but who had died before the election. He was acquitted as deceased persons had no right to vote in the election (Paul, 2002).

The Golden Rule is an extension of the Literal Rule. It allows the court to depart from the Literal Rule where this would produce an obviously absurd result. For the example case will be Keene v Muncaster (1980). The Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1973 make it an offence to park a motor vehicle overnight in the road with the offside against the kerb. However, this is not an offence if a uniformed police officer has given permission to park in this way. The defendant was a uniformed police officer who parked his car overnight with its offside against the kerb. He was prosecuted and relied on the defence that he had given himself permission. His defence was rejected. The court applied the golden rule and held that “permission” meant that permission had to be given by one person to another. He was therefore convicted of the offence (Paul, 2002).
The Mischief Rule can be applied by the courts to resolve an ambiguity which is produced by the application of the Literal Rule. It involves asking what ‘mischief’ in the common law, was intended to be corrected by the statute. The court then applies the interpretation which is consistent with correcting the mischief. The example case can be Gardiner v Sevenoaks Rural District Council (1950). The Mischief Rule can be applied by the courts to resolve an ambiguity which is produced by the application of the Literal Rule. It involves asking what ‘mischief’ in the common law, was intended to be corrected by the statute. The court then applies the interpretation which is consistent with correcting the mischief (Paul, 2002).
The purposive approach has gained favour in recent years. This approach to statutory interpretation can be seen as an extension of the Mischief Rule. Instead of confining itself simply to the mischief which the statute was intended to correct, the court resolves ambiguities by reference to the statute’s overall purpose. Indeed, many modern statutes are not simply intended to correct mischiefs in the common law but have a wider social agenda. Under the purposive approach the courts should try to give effect to this wider statutory purpose in interpreting ambiguous provisions in statutes. For the purposive approach the example case can be Knowles v Liverpool City Council (1993). Knowles was employed by the Council and was injured at work whilst handling a defective flagstone. He claimed damages from them under the Employers’ Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969. The Council claimed that they were not liable as a flagstone could not be “equipment” within the Act. The House of Lords held that it could. The purpose of the statute was to protect employees from exposure to dangerous materials. The words “equipment” should be interpreted in this context. The Council were therefore liable for Knowles’ injuries (Paul, 2002).
To assist judges in interpreting statutes there exist various aids that they may refer to. Aids to statutory interpretation are divided into internal aids and external aids. These are sometimes referred to as intrinsic aids and extrinsic aids to interpretation.
Intrinsic aids to interpretation are concerned, less with the overall approach to interpretation, and more with the precise application and structure of language within the statute. They may be as follows: * Long title of the statute * Preamble of the statute * Chapter Headings of the statute * Marginal Notes to every section of statute * Punctuations * Illustrations given below the sections * Definitions * Provisos * Explanation * Saving Clauses and non-obstante Clauses (Srivastava, 1995).
Extrinsic aids to interpretation are those which come from outside the statute which is being interpreted. They include the following: * Historical background * Statement of objects and reasons * The original Bill as drafted and introduced * Debates in the Legislature * State of things at the time a particular legislation was enacted * Judicial construction * Legal dictionaries * Common sense (Srivastava, 1995).
The court will also rely on presumptions in the process of statutory interpretation. Certain presumptions of statutory interpretation have developed over the years. In the absence of a clear contrary intention within the statute the courts will presume that Parliament intended the statute to have the meaning favoured by the presumption. All presumptions may be rebutted by clear contrary wording in the statute (Paul, 2002).
In conclusion, this essay attempted to examine the different four rules, intrinsic aids and extrinsic aids and presumptions in the interpretation of statutes with given example cases.

Reference list:
Paul C. (2002). Statutory Interpretation. Retrieved from http://www.lawlectures.co.uk/law1/Documents-Law1/Statutory-Interpretation(Study-Paper).pdf
Srivastava A. K. (1995). Interpretation of statutes. Retrieved from http://www.ijtr.nic.in/articles/art21.pdf

Table of cases:
Whiteley v Chappell (1868-69) LR 4 QB 147
Keene v Muncaster (1980) RTR 377
Gardiner v Sevenoaks Rural District Council (1950) 66 TLR
Knowles v Liverpool City Council (1993) 1 WLR 1428