Law Paper 2 - Section A - Disadvantages and Advantages of the Literal Rule Flashcards
(12 cards)
What is the Literal Rule in statutory interpretation?
The Literal Rule requires judges to interpret statutes using the plain, ordinary, and grammatical meaning of the words, regardless of the outcome. It assumes that Parliament has chosen its words carefully and that the judiciary should not add to or change the wording. It is the oldest and most traditional rule of interpretation.
How did Whiteley v Chappell (1868) demonstrate a disadvantage of the Literal Rule?
In this case, the defendant was charged with impersonating “any person entitled to vote.” He impersonated a deceased person, and the court applied the Literal Rule, holding that a dead person is not “entitled to vote,” so the defendant was acquitted. This outcome was absurd and unjust, showing how literal interpretation can allow technical loopholes to override the purpose of the law.
What happened in London & North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman (1946) and why is it significant?
A railway worker was killed while maintaining tracks. His widow was denied compensation because a statute required a lookout only when someone was “repairing or relaying” the track. The court used the Literal Rule and said “maintaining” was not the same as “repairing.” This narrow interpretation ignored the spirit of the law and produced an unfair result, highlighting the potential harshness of the Literal Rule.
Why was the decision in Fisher v Bell (1961) criticised, and what did it show about the Literal Rule?
A shopkeeper displayed a flick knife in a shop window. Under the law, it was an offence to “offer for sale” such items. However, the court held that a display in a window is not legally an “offer” but an “invitation to treat,” based on contract law principles. The Literal Rule led to the defendant avoiding conviction, even though Parliament clearly intended to stop knives being sold. This case shows how strict literalism can frustrate legislative purpose.
What did Professor Zander say about the Literal Rule, and why?
Professor Michael Zander described the Literal Rule as “mechanical, divorced from the realities of language, and irresponsible.” He believed it can produce outcomes that go against the intention of Parliament, and it fails to consider the complexities and ambiguities of language. He favoured more purposive approaches.
What was the Law Commission’s 1969 criticism of the Literal Rule?
The Law Commission criticised the Literal Rule for assuming “unattainable perfection in draftsmanship.” This means it wrongly presumes that every Act of Parliament is perfectly written with no errors, ambiguity, or unforeseen consequences — which is unrealistic in practice.
How did Lord Denning criticise the Literal Rule in Sirius International Insurance v FAI General Insurance (2004)?
Lord Denning called the Literal Rule a 19th-century doctrine that was “wrong in principle.” He argued that judges should focus on Parliament’s intention, not just the strict wording. He preferred a purposive approach that gives effect to what Parliament meant rather than sticking rigidly to literal language.
What caution did Lord Steyn express regarding the Literal Rule?
Lord Steyn warned that the Literal Rule should be used “with caution,” as it may undermine justice and frustrate legislative intent. He believed judges should avoid blind literalism and consider context and purpose when interpreting legislation.
How does the Literal Rule uphold parliamentary sovereignty?
The Literal Rule ensures that judges apply the law exactly as written, without adding or changing words. This respects the constitutional principle that only Parliament can make law, not the judiciary. By interpreting words literally, judges avoid stepping into the role of lawmakers.
In what way does the Literal Rule create certainty in the law?
By focusing on the plain and ordinary meaning of words, the Literal Rule provides clear and predictable outcomes. Lawyers and the public can understand the law without needing to guess judicial interpretations. This certainty helps maintain the rule of law and fair legal processes.
What did Lord Esher say in 1892 in defence of the Literal Rule?
Lord Esher stated: “If the words of an Act are clear then you must follow them, even though they lead to a manifest absurdity.” He believed the courts have “nothing to do with the question of whether the legislature has committed an absurdity.” This highlights his strict belief in the importance of judicial restraint and fidelity to Parliament’s words.
What was Viscount Dilhorne’s 1971 view on the Literal Rule?
Viscount Dilhorne said: “If the language is clear and explicit, the court must give effect to it.” He also emphasised that “the words of a statute must not be overruled by the judges; reform of the law must be left in the hands of Parliament.” His view reinforces the principle of parliamentary supremacy and judicial non-interference.
