Literal Rule - Statutory Interpretation

Definition

The literal rule requires judges to give the ordinary, or plain, meaning of the words in the law.

Oxford English Dictionary

Judges use this from the year the Act was passed, so there is no dispute over the definition of the word, even if the meaning has changed over time. This can lead to absurd outcomes which contradict Parliament's intentions.

DPP v Cheeseman

In this case, the defendant was charged after the police caught him committing an indecent offence in a public bathroom. He was charged under s.28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.

Passengers

This was the word in dispute in the Cheeseman case. The dictionary definition from 1847 stated that a passenger was a passer-by or traveller. As a result, the police officers were not 'passengers' as they were stationed there to apprehend people committing acts like Cheeseman's.

Cheeseman Verdict

Not guilty.

Advantages of the Literal Rule

It creates certainty, it is easy to use, lawyers can accurately advise their clients on the likely outcome of a case, we can all agree on dictionary definitions and it should reduce the quantity of litigations as there is no need for test cases.

Separation of Powers Theory

The literal rule respects this, with Parliament as the law-making body and judges applying the law. As judges are not elected, under this theory it is not their place to change words within the law and become 'law-makers'.

Assumption of Perfectly Drafted Acts

This is unrealistic as this assumes that they will cover every situation that Parliament meant it to; Whitley v Chappell shows that this is not the case.

Multiple Word Meanings

This can also be an issue, with dictionaries containing several different meanings for one word - this was highlighted when trying to interpret the word 'type' under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Both of these mean that the literal rule can lear to unfair decisions such as in Berriman.