Flashcards
Literal Rule
Cards in this deck (8)
- 1Statutory Interpretation - Literal RuleLord Esher: If the words of an Act are clear then you must follow them even though they lead to a manifest absurdity
- 2Judges respect parliamentary sovereignty by not changing interpretation and by giving words in statutes their ordinary, natural dictionary meaning even if results in an absurd outcome using a dictionary from the year that the Act was passedWhitley v Chappell held that a dead person was not 'entitled to vote'. D was impersonating a dead person to vote but court said in the literal sense a dead person is not entitled to vote so not guilty
- 3If words have a technical legal meaning this will be used - Fisher v Bell held that putting an article in a shop window with a price tag on is not an 'offer for sale' but an 'invitation to treat' so not guiltyR v Harris said 'stab, cut or wound' inferred a weapon therefore a wound implied a weapon. D bit off friend's nose and policeman's finger with teeth but not guilty as teeth are not a weapon
- 4LNER v Berriman held that 'relaying or repairing' could not include maintenance. D (Mrs B) denied compensation for Mr B being killed whilst oiling points on railway as oiling points was maintenance as train could still run without oiling so not a necessityCheeseman v DPP held that a 'passenger' means passing. Police not guilty as were stationary and were sent there to witness a man in the toilet
- 5R v Bassett held that 'voyeurism' involves a 'private act' which includes 'person's genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear'. Male torso not seen as 'breasts' so not guilty+ Respects the supremacy of Parliament and leaves law making to those elected for the job. If there is a problem with the words used in a statute, Parliament can amend the statute if it chooses to do so
- 6+ Certainty in the law as judges cannot alter meaning of words to suit themselves. Predictable result makes it easier for people to know what the law is and how judges will apply it+ Doing Parliament a service by drawing faulty legislation and loopholes to their attention as in Fisher v Bell where parliament has to amend the statute shortly after the case
- 7- Where use of literal rule leads to an absurd conclusion, this is hardly carrying out the intention of Parliament since it is unlikely to have intended absurdity or injustice..continued - Wasn't Parliament's intention to allow someone to get away with an extra vote as happened in Whitley v Chappell. Where it does lead to an absurd result as in Fisher v Bell, Parliament is forced to pass another Act to correct the problem
- 8- Assumes that every draft will be perfectly drafted but words do not have one meaning and meanings can change over time. Not always possible to word an Act so that it covers every situation that Parliament intended to regulate as seen in Whitley v Chappell- Favoured by judges who are reluctant to use external aids yet these could have cleared up any uncertainty over the interpretation of the Act
Information
- Description
- A level Law Flashcards on Literal Rule, created by Chloe Green on 02/03/2017.
- Created by
- Chloe Green
- Views
- 1
- Rating