What rules do judges use to interpret statutes

First, judges often begin by looking to the ordinary meaning of the statutory text. Second, courts interpret specific provisions by looking to the broader statutory context. … Fourth, courts may look to the legislative history of a provision. Finally, a judge might consider how a statute has been—or will be—implemented.

The fundamental principle of statutory interpretation is that the words of a statute be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of the legislature.

There are four Rules of Statutory Interpretation, these are the literal rule, the golden rule, the mischief rule and the purposive approach.

When judges are interpreting statutes their aim is to give meaning to a disputed point of legislation as to show what Parliament appears to have intended called interpretation.

Editor’s Note: The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences.