The statutory law of the United Kingdom is known as statutory law, also called legislation. These laws are created and implemented by Parliament and enforced by various authorities. This mission aims to provide a better explanation of the statutory interpretation and the methodologies associated with it. Additionally, it shows a more complete understanding of how courts use these methodologies to interpret laws when necessary. There are three main rules associated with the interpretation of statutes, described as the literal rule, the golden rule, and the mischief rule. This mission will be completed by the implementation; the reasons why courts use these rules will be explained in detail. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Before outlining the methodologies of interpreting laws, it is important to understand their correct importance. Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret a statute or parliamentary act for a better understanding of the law. The House of Lords receives cases and these cases concern the interpretation of statutes, the words of a statute may have a simple meaning, however, the courts sometimes have to interpret statutes because these words can be confusing and indistinct to understand because they can have different meanings. These words must be understood precisely so that the respondents obtain the appropriate sentence for the crimes charged against them, which is one of the reasons why the role of judges is to clarify the uncertainty that these words can cause. To address the correct method, Parliaments created the Interpretation Act, 1978 to guide judges when applying laws in the form of bills and legislation and the Interpretation Act, 1978 states that “In all law, unless otherwise intended; masculine words include the feminine, feminine words include the masculine, singular words include the plural and plural words include the singular. (Sauce essay, 2017) This part of the law was designed to help judges with general remarks. Nowadays, most laws contain an interpretation section to facilitate the courts. These sections summarize what the words contain and how they should be carried out. To evaluate the interpretation of the law, it is necessary to use three explicit statutory rules. Rules have been established so that a framework of interpretation can be provided. These rules are the standard approach to examining the meaning of language used in courts. These are known as the literal rule, the golden rule, and the mischief rule. This rule is the first in a long series of rules for interpreting laws. The literal rule can be defined as giving words their ordinary and natural meaning. Courts normally apply a literal rule before applying it to any other rule, although when this rule is applied the statute is read word for word and the courts are tasked with interpreting that word as it actually is. and not explaining it in the way they think they should. be explained. As an example of the literal rule case of Fisher v Bell (1960), where a retailer had a knife to display in their window. “Any person who manufactures, sells or hires or offers for sale or hire any knife whose blade opens automatically by pressing a button with the hand shall be guilty of an offence” (Essay Sauce, 2017) Law on the restriction of offensive weapons (1959) Sauce essay, 2017). This law practically recommends that the retailer befound guilty. But the court determined that this retailer was not the victim of any infringement. The owner only had the knife in the window with a price and was not selling it. Although the Offensive Weapons Restriction Act of 1959 states that an individual should not negotiate the sale of a knife blade, it is certain that this term should be given in the literal sense and that the store owner should not not be prosecuted. Many cases involving the literal rule have caused problems with numbers; there have been circumstances in which the literal rule has caused injustice. The public might believe that judges are biased and that some people do not deserve the sentence that was imposed on them. Additionally, the literal rule can be very difficult to apply in some cases. This rule is based on the same principles as the literal rule and is used when literal interpretation results in an unfair result. In other words, the Golden Rule is a modification of the literal rule and this allows judges to look at words in context. The court always begins the case by taking a literal approach. However, if this rule fails in its logic, then the golden rule could be applied. The golden rule can be interpreted in two ways; a narrow approach and a broad approach. The term narrow approach reflects the judge's view of how the golden rule should be applied and has more than one meaning. In this case, the judge applies the meaning that best suits the situation in which the word is interpreted. The cases of R v. Allen 1872 and Adler v. Georgia 1964 are probably the best cases that illustrate the use of the golden rule, the case of R v. Allen, the defendant Allen was accused of adultery. Section 57 of the Offenses Against the Person Act 1861 obviously states that “any married person who marries any other person during the lifetime of the former husband/wife shall be guilty of bigamy”. (Legislation.gov.uk, 2002) The challenge raised in court concerned the word “marry”. So, to have meaning, the court decided that the word married must also denote a legal form and ceremony of marriage to another person. However, since the accused was already married, it made sense for the judges to apply the general meaning of the word. If the judges applied any other meaning of the word, it would have led to bigamy and could result in an absurd verdict. The broad approach of Adler v George 1964 showed that the accused was accused of obstructing a guard in the exercise of his duty. as provided by the 1920 Act, no person on duty in the vicinity or the chief officer shall be hindered or the person will be found guilty. The accused claimed that since he was in the prohibited place and not near it, he should not be found guilty. Furthermore, if the court agreed to use the first term, it would mean that the accused would be innocent and that would be an absurd decision. The courts heard this ruling to clarify that regardless of whether a person is near or near a prohibited place, it is not right to obstruct it. The mischief rule is the oldest rule. This rule is a principle used to interpret statutes, judges can apply the interpretation of statutes to discover the intention of Parliament, but this rule requires the court to first consider what the statute was before the statute, in order to discover what loophole or mischief the law was intended to do. cover. The court then plays an essential role in interpreting the law so as to fill this gap. The rule summarizes the Heydon case (1584), where it was said that for the true interpretation of a law, a few aspects must be taken into consideration, such as 18.