Lawmaking, Statutory Interpretation
1. The literal rules Once Parliament has passed an Act, it then falls to the Court to apply the Statute in a particular case
This can lead to difficulties where the facts of the case may not have been envisaged by Parliament
or where there exists lasting errors or ambiguity in the Statute. The Interpretation Act of 1978 provides some guidance with certain basic definitions
such as singular includes plural and here includes two. The Courts have developed rules to assist judges in interpreting Statutes
The rules of statutory interpretation are 1. The literal rules 2. The golden rules 3. The legislative rules
Additionally there is the purportive approach. Although referred to as rules, they are not strictly binding
Some commentators have argued that they are used to justify a decision rather than assisting a decision making process
This video will focus on explaining the literal rules. Look out for other videos in this series explaining the other rules
There are also videos discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each rule
Judges are assisted by various aids to interpretation. These can be internal aids or external aids
Look out for videos on these too. The Literal Rule Under the literal rule, the words of the Statute are given the natural or ordinary meaning
Or a prize without the drugs is used to put a gloss on the words or seek some extent of the Statute
Consequently its application can get some odd results. The literal rule of statutory interpretation should be the first rule applied by judges
The literal rule was established in R. V. Harris, A.C. 36. Prior to this, the mischief rule was applied to determine the meaning of a statute
The mischief rule was considered too lax at a time when Parliament was becoming a more significant force in law making
With the rise in suffrage, Parliament was establishing itself as the supreme law maker
Judges have no democratic mandate to make the law. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, 1748
it is considered they should exactly apply the words made by Parliament, even if this makes a nonsense of the law
If Parliament makes an error, it is up to Parliament, not the judges, to correct it
This can be seen in R. V. Harris. The defendant bit off the victim's nose
The Statute made it an offence to stab, cut or wound. The court held that under the literal rule, the act of biting would not come within the wording of the Statute
The defendant's conviction was quashed. Following this case, Parliament passed the Offences Against the Person Act, A.P. 61
which clarifies the meaning of weeding in Sections 18 and 20. In Cuban v. C.P.T., the defendant had been caught masturbating in a public lavatory
He was charged under Section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act, A.P. 47
which made it an offence to expose oneself to the annoyance of presidents or passengers
The court used the dictionary from the time the statute was made to determine the meaning of passenger
This simply meant passer-by. Consequently, the defendant was acquitted. He had exposed himself to the police who were waiting to catch him, so they were not passing by
Another example of the literal rule is Fisher v. Bell. The defendant had a flick knife displayed in his shop window with a price tag on it
A statute made it a criminal offence to offer such flick knives for sale
His conviction was quashed as goods on display in shops are not offered, in the political sense, but an invitation to treat
A further illustration is the case of Wright v. Chappell. A statute made it an offence to impersonate any person entitled to vote
The defendant used the vote of a dead man. The statute relating to voting rights required a person to be living in order to be entitled to vote
Consequently, the defendant was not liable under the literal rule. In London and North-Eastern Railway v. Berriman, a railway worker was killed whilst oiling the train track
No in-the-park man had been provided. A statute providing compensation was payable on behalf of those relaying or repairing the track
Under the literal rule, oiling did not come into either of these categories
Consequently, his widow was not entitled to compensation. In summary, the literal rule is one of three rules used by judges to interpret statutes
It should be the first rule applied. The literal rule is where the words are interpreted strictly according to their ordinary or natural meaning
This may lead to some odd results. This video is part of a series of videos on law from www.e-lawsources.co.uk
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel www.youtube.com slash e-lawsources. It's free to do so and will help us to keep providing these videos
Check out our website which provides lecture outlines and case summaries. See also www.e-lawrevision.org.uk for revision games and quizzes
Thanks for watching