Case Law
The Literal Rule
Words should be given their ordinary, dictionary meaning, with no exceptions. Lord Esher stated in R v Judge of the City of London Court (1892) that this should be done even if it leads to a 'manifest absurdity'. Judges who follow this rule, only apply the law and do not try to interpret the law.
Advantages
• Provides the will of parliament
• Maintains the separation of powers
• Encourages consistency
Disadvantages
• Harsh results
• Absurd results
• Rigid/ mechanical
• Defeats parliaments intentions
- Whiteley v Chappell (1868). Defendant charged under a section which made it an offence to 'impersonate any person entitled to vote'. The person the defendant was pretending to be was dead, so the defendant was found not guilty; because taking it literally, a person who is no longer alive is not entitled to vote. This was an absurd result.
- London & North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman (1946).
Railway worker killed while doing maintenance work on train tracks. His widow tried to claim compensation because there had not been a look-out man provided by the company; Fatal Accidents Act stated a look-out man should be provided if the worker was 'relaying or repairing' the tracks. Taking it literally, 'maintaining' was not the same as 'relaying or repairing', so Mrs Berriman's claim failed.
Fisher v Bell [1960] A shopkeeper displayed a flick-knife in his window. The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 made it an offence to offer such a knife for sale. The defendant argued that a display of anything in a show window is simply an offer to treat and this means that, under contract law, it is the customer who makes the offer to buy the knife.
Cheeseman v DPP (1990)
Members of the public had complained about incidents of this sort. Police Officers were stationed in a public toilet to catch the offenders. They arrested someone who had exposed himself and charged him under S.28 of the Town & Country
Words should be given their ordinary, dictionary meaning, with no exceptions. Lord Esher stated in R v Judge of the City of London Court (1892) that this should be done even if it leads to a 'manifest absurdity'. Judges who follow this rule, only apply the law and do not try to interpret the law.
Advantages
• Provides the will of parliament
• Maintains the separation of powers
• Encourages consistency
Disadvantages
• Harsh results
• Absurd results
• Rigid/ mechanical
• Defeats parliaments intentions
- Whiteley v Chappell (1868). Defendant charged under a section which made it an offence to 'impersonate any person entitled to vote'. The person the defendant was pretending to be was dead, so the defendant was found not guilty; because taking it literally, a person who is no longer alive is not entitled to vote. This was an absurd result.
- London & North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman (1946).
Railway worker killed while doing maintenance work on train tracks. His widow tried to claim compensation because there had not been a look-out man provided by the company; Fatal Accidents Act stated a look-out man should be provided if the worker was 'relaying or repairing' the tracks. Taking it literally, 'maintaining' was not the same as 'relaying or repairing', so Mrs Berriman's claim failed.
Fisher v Bell [1960] A shopkeeper displayed a flick-knife in his window. The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 made it an offence to offer such a knife for sale. The defendant argued that a display of anything in a show window is simply an offer to treat and this means that, under contract law, it is the customer who makes the offer to buy the knife.
Cheeseman v DPP (1990)
Members of the public had complained about incidents of this sort. Police Officers were stationed in a public toilet to catch the offenders. They arrested someone who had exposed himself and charged him under S.28 of the Town & Country