how would i answer this question ?
How does a judge interpret statutues? thers not really a process so is it talking about the intrinsic and extrinsic materials ?
also how would i answer this, should the courts be making laws on controversial issues?
for the second question (on the courts and controversy), you need to consider a few things, because, without actually saying it in the question, it is a critical evaluation of the courts as law makers - however it takes it a step further and specifies exactly which area of court made law it wants you to evaluate (the ability of the judiciary to make laws in controversial areas).
-Because they don't rely on votes, judge's aren't at the mercy of the public, as (unlike Parliament) they cannot be held accountable for their actions. If a judge sets a precedent that goes against the views and values of the wider community, there is little that can be done, particularly if a higher court (supreme or even High court) does this. The only way a bad court-made law can be overturned is by Parliament (a feature of their relationship, and a strength of Parliament as a lawmaking body). As a result of this absence of accountability, it's argued that the courts should not make laws in controversial areas, as there is no way to check against bias or poor decisions.
However, this fact that judge's are appointed and not elected also means that the judiciary can make laws that are likely to be in the best interest of society - free from political pressures and influences. Because Parliament relies on the public's vote, they may withhold lawmaking in areas of controversy to avoid alienating a particular (usually powerful) group of voters. Without this issue, the courts can effectively make laws in controversial areas.
-Another point is that the judiciary is not democratic, as it is often only a single judge who sets precedent. In areas of controversy (such as abortion) , it's difficult for a single person to make impartial laws, setting aside their own views on the matter. Because no official scrutiny can be applied on the judiciary, it is likely that their personal biases will disrupt their ability to effectively make laws in controversial areas.
Also, the primary function of the courts is to settle the dispute presented in the case before them - lawmaking is their secondary function. This means that a court may set a precedent (and thus, make a law) that is in the best interest of the case at hand, but may be inadequate as a general law. Because no 2 cases are identical, the judge's ratio decidendi must be focused on the case at hand, but also general enough to be applied to wider cases. this is difficult to achieve, and rarely done properly - court-made law tends to be tilted in the best interest of the particular case (that is, to be applied to the ad hoc case, rather than as a general rule for the wider community). In controversial areas, this means that a law may be made that is appropriate to one case, but inappropriate to others, and so the law itself would be ineffective in practice.
hope this helps, sorry it's so long, i haven't written about legal in a few months so reword it in your own way, but those are the main few points (you don't need to talk about all of them - depends on how many marks the q. is worth)