Literal Rule Flashcards
What is the main idea behind the literal rule?
A. Judges must apply the plain, ordinary meaning of the words in a statute
B. Judges interpret statutes according to modern social context
C. Judges prioritise the mischief the Act intended to address
D. Judges refer to Hansard and other external aids
A. Judges must apply the plain, ordinary meaning of the words in a statute
Explanation: The literal rule applies the exact wording of the law without adding judicial interpretation, regardless of the outcome.
Which of the following is a benefit of using the literal rule?
A. It allows judges to update outdated laws
B. It ensures judicial restraint and respects parliamentary sovereignty
C. It guarantees just outcomes in every case
D. It requires use of legal policy over strict text
B. It ensures judicial restraint and respects parliamentary sovereignty
Explanation: The literal rule ensures that judges apply rather than make law, which supports the principle of separation of powers.
What is a major criticism of the literal rule?
A. It produces consistent and predictable results
B. It improves public understanding of the law
C. It can lead to absurd or unjust outcomes
D. It encourages broad interpretation of statutes
C. It can lead to absurd or unjust outcomes
Explanation: Because it focuses strictly on wording, the literal rule can result in unintended or unfair applications, even if Parliament likely meant otherwise.
In Whiteley v Chappell, the defendant impersonated a dead person to vote. The court found him not guilty because the statute referred to “any person entitled to vote.” Why was this result reached?
A. The words were interpreted literally, and a dead person isn’t entitled to vote
B. The court found voting laws didn’t apply to impersonation
C. The court relied on Hansard for interpretation
D. The mischief rule applied and found impersonation wasn’t the mischief
A. The words were interpreted literally, and a dead person isn’t entitled to vote
Explanation: Under the literal rule, a dead person is not “entitled to vote” — therefore, technically, the offence wasn’t made out.
A statute provides compensation for workers killed while “repairing or relaying” railway track. A worker is killed while “oiling” the track. What outcome would the literal rule likely produce?
A. Compensation is awarded under the mischief rule
B. Compensation is refused because “oiling” is not mentioned
C. Compensation is granted due to purposive interpretation
D. The judge interprets “repairing” to include all maintenance work
B. Compensation is refused because “oiling” is not mentioned
Explanation: In LNER v Berriman, the court applied the literal rule and held that “oiling” was not “repairing” — no compensation was due.
A court applying the literal rule finds that a statute contains a clear drafting error. What must the court do?
A. Amend the wording to fix the mistake
B. Apply the words as written, even if absurd
C. Refer the matter back to Parliament for clarification
D. Apply the golden rule instead
B. Apply the words as written, even if absurd
Explanation: The literal rule insists on strict application — judges cannot alter or fix the language, even when there’s a clear error.
Why might a judge choose not to apply the literal rule in a borderline case?
A. Because it could lead to a result Parliament could not possibly have intended
B. Because literal meaning always aligns with purpose
C. Because Parliament has explicitly forbidden literal interpretation
D. Because the golden rule requires it
A. Because it could lead to a result Parliament could not possibly have intended
Explanation: Where literal interpretation produces an absurdity, judges may instead turn to the golden rule or purposive approach.
The literal rule is most likely to be applied when:
A. The wording of the statute is ambiguous or vague
B. Parliament’s intent is unclear
C. A new area of law is being developed
D. The statutory language is clear and unambiguous
C. The statutory language is clear and unambiguous
Explanation: The literal rule is preferred when the language leaves no room for doubt, even if the outcome is controversial.
Which of the following best reflects judicial thinking in R v City of London Court (1892)?
A. Judges must prioritise justice over language
B. Words must be interpreted to match Parliament’s intent
C. Clear words must be followed, even if they cause absurdity
D. Statutes must be read alongside international treaties
C. Clear words must be followed, even if they cause absurdity
Explanation: The case supports the literal rule principle that courts follow the law as written, regardless of outcome.
