Explain the different rules of statutory interpretation within the English Legal System. Use cases and examples to show your analysis.

There are four main approaches as to how legislation can be interpreted by judges within England and Wales. My answer will explain each of the approaches which can be taken, using cases and examples to demonstrate my understanding.
The first rule of interpretation which can be used by judges is the literal rule. Adopting the literal rule, a judge will interpret the statute by using its literal dictionary meaning. This involves looking specifically at the section and applying its ordinary meaning. An example of how the literal rule is used is in the Fisher v Bell [1960] case which involved the selling of flick-knives. Under the 'Offensive Weapons Act 1959', it was an offence to offer the sale of certain offensive weapons including flick-knives. The defendant displayed a flick-knife in the window of a shop and it was for the Court to determine whether he could be prosecuted under the Act. Taking a literal interpretation of the legislation, the judge held that the defendant could not be prosecuted under the Act. This was because the judge read the Act by giving it its ordinary meaning, therefore 'displaying' the flick-knife in the shop window did not amount to 'selling' a flick-knife. This demonstrates how the literal rule works, as a judge will interpret an Act literally in order to come to a decision.
Judges can also interpret legislation through adopting the golden Rule. When using this rule of interpretation. If the literal rule causes absurdities to occur, the golden rule can be adopted in order to come to another outcome. An example of this is Adler v George [1964]. In this case it was an offence under 'section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920' to obstruct HM forces in the vicinity of a prohibited area. The defendant argued that as he was 'within' the base, he was therefore not 'near' it or in the vicinity of it, therefore could not be prosecuted. The judge used the golden rule, as using the literal rule the defendant would not be prosecuted as he technically was not in 'the vicinity' of the base as he was within it. As this would create an absurd outcome, the golden rule allowed the meaning of the Act to be extended so that a fair outcome could be achieved.
Thirdly, judges can interpret statutes by using the Mischief Rule. This rule allows judges to consider the common law issues before the legislation was introduced in order to come to a conclusion on whether to prosecute or not. If the defendant has done what the legislation was introduced to overcome, judges can prosecute under this rule of interpretation. In Smith v Hughes [1960], the defendants were charged under the 'Street Offences Act 1959' for soliciting in public. The defendants were soliciting in the window of a shop, and not technically on the street. However by using the mischief rule, the judge interpreted the statute in a way which could prosecute the defendants, as the Act was introduced in order to prevent soliciting taking place in public.
Finally, judges may use the Purposive Approach. Using this approach, judges look at what was missing prior the Act being introduced and what Parliament's intentions were when introducing the Act. This is a recent development to the rules of interpretation, unlike the other rules. Explaining this rule, Lord Denning in Magor and St Mellons v Newport Corp [1950] stated that "here we find out Parliament's intentions.. we do this by filling in the previous gaps."
To conclude, these are the different rules of statutory interpretation used by judges in England and Wales. Judges have the discretion to interpret legislation in the way they feel it should be.