There are four main ways, for judges to interpret Parliamentary legislation; they can use the literal rule, golden rule, mischief rule, or the purposive approach.

The first 200 words of this essay...

Lord Scarman stated in Magor and St Mellons v Newport Corporation (1950):

"If Parliament says one thing and means another, it is not, under the historic principles of the common law, for the courts to correct it. The general principle must surely be acceptable in our society. We are to be governed not by Parliament's intentions but by Parliament's enactments".

(a) With reference to the above source, explain the methods used by judges to interpret Parliamentary legislation.

There are four main ways, for judges to interpret Parliamentary legislation; they can use the literal rule, golden rule, mischief rule, or the purposive approach. But on which, depends on the particular judge, as is shown in the text above. Lord Scarman states "If Parliament says one thing and means another, it is not, under the historic principles of the common law, for the courts to correct it" and "We are to be governed not by Parliament's intentions but by Parliament's enactments". This implies that he approves of the literal rule, and strongly disapproves of the others.

The literal rule, as it suggests means that the judge will interpret the words of the act literally, even if the result