literal rule disadvantages - model answer
Cards (5)
- Evaluation 1:One of the main disadvantages of the literal rule is that it assumes all Acts of parliament have been drafted perfectly. This is not the case and unjust results can be found in the cases of Whiteley v Chappell (1868) and LNER v Berriman (1946). Clearly in these cases the outcomes were absurdities, however, the Judges had very little power to apply the Law in an alternative way.
- Evaluation 2:Another disadvantage is that the statute is unclear. A word may have more than one meaning so the Act is ambiguous. Even in dictionaries a word may have more than one meaning as in The Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) and the meaning of the word "type". This creates situations where the Law is inadequate, unusable and requires further time and effort to become affective through judicial interpretation or reforms by parliament.
- Evaluation 3:There is also the problem with unrealistic expectations arising from the literal rule. Professor Zander called the literal rule "irresponsible" and the Law Commission 1969 thought using the literal rule "assumes unattainable perfection in draftsmanship". This means that, use of the literal rule implies that all Acts of parliament are drafted to perfection, with no errors, or ambiguity and all situations accounted for.
- Evaluation 3:If so, this would mean all Acts would be applied with no issues. The Offences Against Person Act 1861 shows how this is not the case, as numerous pieces of common law have been required to make the Act applicable.
- Evaluation 4:A final disadvantage is that the literal rule provides no scope for judicial opinions. When applying the literal approach, the Judges hands are tied. They have no option other than to follow the words of Parliament. Even when the wording is unclear, or will lead to an unfair outcome, it must be followed. The judiciary, who see cases on a day-to-day basis are the experts on the Law, so arguably they would be the best in deciding how to apply it to everyday situations.