The Literal Rule

Question 1

intro [paragraph 1]

Answer 1

In many statutes, the wording is ambiguous or old-fashioned or the words could have multiple meanings. Because of this, judges have developed rules over time to help them ‘find’ the meaning of the words. One of which is known as the Literal Rule.

Question 2

definition [paragraph 2]

Answer 2

The Literal Rule was famously summed up by Lord Esher in R v Judge of the City of London Court as “If the words of an act are clear then you must follow them even though they lead to a manifest absurdity”.

Question 3

meaning [paragraph 3]

Answer 3

This means that under the Literal Rule, it is the job of the court to give words in a statute their plain, ordinary meaning even if doing so creates unfairness in the case. This is done by using an Oxford English Dictionary published in the same year as the statute. This represents the view that it is the judiciary’s job to simply apply the law and not question Parliament’s sovereignty.

Question 4

Whitely v Chappel

Answer 4

One example of the use of the Literal Rule was in Whitely v Chappell. The defendant (D) pretended to be someone who was dead in order to vote in an election and was charged with “impersonating a person entitled to vote”. However, using the Literal Rule, the Court found D not guilty as a dead person was not actually “entitled to vote”.

Question 5

Cheeseman v DPP

Answer 5

Another example of this was Cheeseman v DPP. Here, D walked into a toilet cubicle and began to masturbate. Plain clothed officers had been waiting and had arrested D, who was charged under the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 with ‘wilfully and indecently exposing his person in a street to the annoyance of passengers’. However, D argued that the Police Officers were not ‘passengers’ and as the High Court considered the meaning of ‘passenger’ in the 1846 Oxford English Dictionary, they agreed and the D was found not guilty.