The Literal Rule Evaluation Flashcards
ADVANTAGE NO.1
[Respects Parliamentary Sovereignty]
One advantage of the rule is that it respects Parliamentary Sovereignty. As Parliament is elected democratically, it remains as the country’s Supreme Law Maker. The Literal Rule prevents unelected judges from overriding Parliament’s importance and making law without the consent of the electorate or the elected.
(Cheeseman v DPP)
ADVANTAGE NO.2
[Consistent]
Another advantage is the reliability and consistency the rule brings. As the meaning of the word is always taken from an Oxford English Dictionary published the same year of the statute, there is certainty in the law.
(Cheeseman v DPP: definition will never change)
ADVANTAGE NO.3
[Simplifies Judges Role]
The rule simplifies the judge’s role, which is another advantage. It amplifies the separation of powers and makes it easier for a judge presiding over a case which, in turn, makes the case proceedings move along faster.
(Whitely v Chappel: not getting politically involved)
ADVANTAGE NO.4
[Highlights Problems]
Finally, the rule highlighting problems is an advantage. Application of the wording of a statute can shine light on issues not seen when making the Act.
(Fisher v Bell)
Cheeseman v DPP
D was found not guilty of ‘indecently exposing his person to the annoyance of passengers’ when found masturbating in a toilet cubicle as the people who caught him, plain clothed police officers, were not considered to be ‘passengers’ according to the dictionary used.
Whitely v Chappel
D pretended to be a dead person to vote in election and was charged with ‘impersonating someone entitled to vote’. The judge used the Literal Rule to find that a dead person was not ‘entitled to vote’ and so D was not guilty.
Fisher v Bell
D put a flick-knife in their shop window with a price. He was arrested under an act which prevented the sale/hire or offer of sale/hire of certain offensive weapons. D was found not guilty as it was found that putting the item in the shop window simply an invitation to the customer to offer to buy.
DISADVANTAGE NO.1
[Creates Unfair Results]
One disadvantage is the unfair results it creates. The Literal Rule requires all statutes to be drafted of a high quality as the meaning of one word can completely change the outcome of a case.
(Berriman)
DISADVANTAGE NO.2
[Unclear Statute]
Another disadvantage is if the statute is unclear. Even in a dictionary, a word may have multiple different meanings which makes the actual meaning of the state unclear.
An example of this uncertainty is in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, where dangerous dogs are defined by ‘type’ which is extremely broad. This lead to cases like DPP v Brock where dogs were put down due to a confusing interpretation of a word.
DISADVANTAGE NO.3
[Unrealistic Standards]
The rule also creates unrealistic standards which is another disadvantage. Professor Zander calls the Literal Rule “irresponsible” and the Law Commission thought using the rule “assumes the unattainable perfection in draftsmanship”.
(Whitely v Chappel: exonerated someone clearly guilty of impersonating another person to vote)
DISADVANTAGE NO.4
[Problems Remain]
One final disadvantage is that any problems that are identified will remain. Because judges cannot amend the wording of a statute, problems that arise with the wording of an act are set to remain for as long as it takes Parliament to amend them.
This is shown in the Dangerous Dogs Act. Many cases showed the issue with the classification of dogs by ‘type’ but no action has ever been taken to change that and so it still remains to cause problem after problem in many criminal cases.
Berriman Case
A wife attempted to claim compensation as her unsupervised husband was hit by a train whilst oiling the tracks. However, under the Fatal Protections Act 1846, supervision was only required when one was ‘repairing or relaying’ and oiling was said to be ‘maintaining’ of the track and so the wife was entitled to no compensation.
