This essay examines the different approaches to statutory interpretation, which are methods used to interpret the words of statute law. It explores the literal approach, highlighting its potential for unfair outcomes and inconsistencies, as illustrated by cases like Whiteley v Chappell and LNER v Berriman. The essay then delves into the golden approach, emphasizing its ability to prevent unreasonable interpretations and make moral judgments, while acknowledging its controversial nature. The mischief approach is discussed, focusing on judges considering the purpose of the statute and the historical context, with examples such as Royal College of Nursing v DHSS and Smith v Hughes. Finally, the essay touches on the purposive approach, used in European courts, which evaluates whether defendants are using new skills or knowledge to commit crimes. The author concludes that the golden approach is the best due to judges' neutrality and the ability to consider evidence, while acknowledging the importance of all approaches in protecting society and refining legal processes.
![[object Object]](/_next/static/media/star-bottom.7253800d.svg)
