The main task when interpreting statutes in the English legal system is to ascertain the intention of Parliament. Parliament is the ultimate legislator in the English legal system. In our constitutional theory Parliament is sovereign, this means that all legislative power is invested in Parliament, it has no rival in the legislative process. It is the role of Parliament to pass English law in the form of statutes and the judges role in the legal process is to apply these statutes to cases and in order to do this they need to interpret the statute. .
Previously there have been three recognised rules for statutory interpretation, it is necessary to look at these so the impact of the European Communities Act 1972 can be seen.
The Literal Rule, where the words in the statute must be given their plain and ordinary or literal meaning, to identify the intention of Parliament expressed in the words used.
The Golden Rule, this rule can be used in two ways, firstly in a narrow application, the rule states that if the words in a statute are ambiguous the court should adopt an interpretation which avoids an absurd result. Secondly a broader application which takes into account public policy.
The Mischief Rule, this rule allows the court to look at the state of the former law in order to discover the mischief in it which the present statute was designed to remedy. .
There are also statutory aids to interpretation, the Interpretation Act 1889, an interpretation section and a pre-amble. These rules and aids are all directed to ascertaining the meaning of the words used, in order to find the intention of Parliament. This is a distinctive feature of the English judges to interpretation, however a consequence of this is that if, on the wording of the legislation a particular situation appears not to be covered, judges traditionally have not been prepared to engage in "gap filling" by reading or implying words to bring that particular situation within the scope of legislation.