literal rule model answer

• The literal rule is the traditional approach to statutory interpretation. It was famously summed up by Lord Esher in R v Judge of the City of London Court 'If the words are clear then you must follow them even though they lead to a manifest absurdity. This means the judge must give the words in the Act their plain, ordinary meaning, from the Oxford English dictionary of the year the Act was made, even if it causes an unfair result.
• In L&NER v Berriman, a wife tried to claim compensation after her husband was killed oiling points on the railway line. The Fatal Accidents Act 1846 said that compensation was payable if he was "repairing or relaying" the line. The judge applied the literal rule and, since oiling the track was not "repairing or relaying" (it was maintaining), she was unable to get compensation. This was a harsh decision.
• In DPP V Cheeseman, D was charged with exposing his person to the "annoyance of passengers" under the Town and Country Planning Act 1847. The dictionary defined the word "passenger" as someone passing through and using the premises for their ordinary purpose. Since the police had been stationed in the toilet, they were not technically passengers, so Cheeseman was found not guilty using the literal rule. This was an absurd decision.
• In Fisher v Bell D displayed flick-knives in his shop window and was charged with 'offering them for sale.' The judge applied the literal rule and held it was technically not an offer for sale because under contract law "offer for sale" has a strict meaning that does not include displaying in windows (this would be an "invitation to treat" - meaning inviting the customer to make an offer) so the defendant was found not guilty. This was an absurd decision.
• In Whiteley v Chappell D had pretended to be a dead man in order to have more than one vote. He was charged with impersonating someone "entitled to vote". The judge applied the literal rule and held that, since a dead person is not "entitled to vote" he had not technically committed the offence, so D was found not guilty. This was an absurd decision.