Literal Rule to Statutory Interpretation
by The literal rule is seen as one extreme on the scale of approaches to statutory interpretation, it takes the words or phrases in an act for their plain and ordinary meaning. It is parliaments role to write what they wish to have followed, not for the judges to make law’s up.
p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }
The Literal rule – involves giving words their “natural and p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }ordinary” meaning (Lord Reid), “even though they lead to a manifest absurdity” (R v Judge of the City of London Court). Fundamentally it follows what Parliament actually said, not necessary what they would have intended to say.
Whietley v Chappell is a an example of a case whereby the literal rule was applied. The defendant was charged with impersonation of “any person entitled to vote”. The defendant used a dead person’s identity to vote, applying the literal rule then dead people are not entitled to vote so did not strictly impersonate anyone who was entitled to vote.
In the case of R v Harries a statue made it an offence to ’stab, cut or wound’, all of which the court deemed to imply the use of a weapon was needed. Mrs Harries had actually bitten her victims and using the literal approach the court considered teeth where not a weapon.
Liked it
