Literal Rule

Question 1

Process

Answer 1

Judge applies law in plain, ordinary meaning even if it leads to absurd decision, dictionary
Judges dont think its their place to be involved in law making
Absurd decision alerts parliament of error

Question 2

DPP v Cheeseman

Answer 2

Masturbate in public, s.28 Town and Country planning act 1847 said “passengers” =, police were still

Question 3

Whitely v Chappell

Answer 3

Impersonating dead man to get extra votem not guilty as dead people aren’t entitled to vote

Question 4

R v Harris

Answer 4

D bit v’s nose, not guilty as law forbid “stab, cut or wound”

Question 5

LNER v Berriman

Answer 5

Widow denied compensation after husband killed oiling points , wasnt ‘relaying or reparing’ track

Question 6

Adv: Follows exact wording of parliament

Answer 6

Retains parliamentary supremacy and makes it democratic, absurdity draws attention
(DPP v Cheeseman)

Question 7

Adv: Certainty

Answer 7

Makes it clear where the law stands and allows public to know the law and lawyers advise appropriately (Harris)

Question 8

Adv: Restricts judges powers

Answer 8

Prevents giving powers to judges who are unelected and unrepresentative
LNER v Berriman

Question 9

Adv: Prompts parliament to fix issues

Answer 9

Absurd decisions should prompt parliament to make changes, not up to judges to do so (harris)

Question 10

Disadv: assumes perfection from draftsmen

Answer 10

Parliamentary law is written by humans so there may be human error / changes in society (Whiteley v Chappell)

Question 11

Disadv: words can have multiple meanings

Answer 11

in this case act becomes unclear, even if dictionaries are used (cheeseman)

Question 12

Disadv: unfair and absurd results

Answer 12

Leads to lack of justice for individual (LNER v Berriman)

Question 13

Disadv: too rigid

Answer 13

Laws cannot change and adapt over time, such as with medical or technological advances, so law remains static (Royal college of nursing v DHSS)