LITERAL RULE Flashcards
Literal rule
Plain, literal, ordinary dictionary definition from the Oxford English Dictionary from the time the act was passed
Supported by
Lord Esher
What case did he support it in
R v judge of city of London court
What did he say in the case
The literal rule should be used even if it causes absurdity
Literal rule cases
Cheeseman v dpp
LNER V berriman
Whitley v Chappell
Fisher v bell
Cheeseman v dpp
Cheeseman caught exposing himself to plain clothed officers and charged under the police town clauses act with ‘wilfully and indecently exposing himself in a street to the annoyance of passengers’ the court had to interpret the word ‘passengers’ using the literal rule the officers weren’t ‘passengers’ as the word literally meant passer by but the police were stationed there and not passing by so they weren’t passengers. Cheeseman therefore got away with an activity which parliament was meant to criminalise producing an absurd result
LNER V berriman
Berriman was killed whilst oiling points on a railway line. His partner attempted to claim damages. Under the fatal accidents act he should have had a look out if he was ‘relaying and repairing’ but court held oiling was ‘maintaining’ the lines not relating or repairing so the act didn’t apply and she wasn’t entitled to any compensation. Making a harsh and unjust result
Whitley v Chappell
Court had to interpret the meaning of the words ‘any person entitled to vote’ from the poor law amendment act. Whitley had gained an extra bite in an election by pretending to be someone who whilst still on the electoral register was dead . Since Whitley was impersonating a dead man he couldn’t be impersonating ‘any person intiled to vote’ this is an unrealistic result as it can’t have been parliaments intention to allow someone to get away with an extra vote
Fisher v bell
Parliament wanted to ban the use of flick knives under the offensive weapons act if was an offence to ‘sell of offer for sale any flick knives’ the defendant had flick knives in his shop window. But it was held that the display of goods in a shop window amounted an invitation to treat, under contract law, not an offer for sale. So defendant was acquitted
