Literal Rule

• Literal Rule


  Lord Esher (1892):

  Gives all the words in the Act their plain, ordinary, grammatical meaning.  This should be used even if it leads to absurdity.

  This is the most commonly used rule.
• Whiteley v Chappell (1868)


  Here the statute made it an offence to impersonate ‘any person entitled to vote’.

  The defendant pretended to be someone who had recently died in order to use that person’s vote. 

  As a dead person cannot vote, the defendant was held not to have committed an offence.
• Fisher v Bell (1961)


  The statute made it an offence to ‘offer for sale’ offensive weapons.

  The shop in question had flick knives in the window with a price attached and was convicted under the Act. 

  They appealed and the court stated that as goods in a shop window were an ‘invitation to treat’ and not an ‘offer for sale’ then under the literal rule no crime had been committed.
• LNER v Berriman (1946)


  Mr. B was killed whilst ‘maintaining and oiling’ the railway tracks.

  His widow was denied compensation as it was only payable under the Act if he was ‘relaying and repairing’ the tracks
• Cheeseman’s case


  1. Passenger was looked up in a dictionary from 1847 (the year of the Act) to understand it’s meaning when the Act was created.
  2. Cheeseman was acquitted as the police were not passengers.  They were stationed there to catch him and were not using the toilets for their purpose, nor passing through.
  3. Not the correct decision as the aim of the Act was to prevent this type of behaviour in public places as it was offensive to people.
• Advantages of the literal rule

  • Respects Parliamentary Sovereignty
  • Highlights loopholes
  • Saves time
  • Certainty
• Respects Parliamentary Sovereignty


  As it gives effect to the precise words used in the Act and allows law to be made by those elected.  Judges follow the words rather than attempting to seek the ‘intention of parliament’.

  E.g. Whiteley v Chapell, in this case, even though the outcome led to an absurdity, the judges followed the law as it was written by Parliament and restricted their role to applying as opposed to making it.

  It also limits the discretion of the judges, who, unlike Parliament, are unelected.  This upholds the separation of powers as the judges should not have law making power.
• Highlights loopholes

  in the Act to Parliament who can then correct its mistakes. 

  E.g. Fisher v Bell highlighted the problematic wording which prevented the Act being interpreted as Parliament is likely to have intended and prevent the sale of offensive weapons.

  Parliament then had to change the Act to close this loophole.

  This should focus the mind of Parliament, forcing them to be clear in their language.
• Saves time

  The literal rule provides fast decisions because other than a quick reference to a dictionary, it does not require the judge to research extrinsic aids in order to work out Parliament’s intent.  This minimises external influences and interpretations of Parliament’s intention and focuses on the words of the Act itself.
• Certainty

  The literal rule provides clarity, certainty and predictability which allows lawyers to confidently advise their clients on the outcome of their case and therefore reduce the need for unnecessary litigation.

  It also makes the law accessible and easier to understand for the ordinary person as words can be taken at face value.

  It also encourages parliamentary draftsmen to be precise and create legislation which is clear, precise and plainly written so it can be read, understood and determined by anyone who can read English.
• Key Aspects of the Literal Rule:

  1. Primary interpretation method: It's often the first approach judges use when interpreting statutes.
  2. Focus on text: The rule emphasizes the actual words used in the legislation, rather than trying to infer the intention behind the law.
  3. Dictionary definitions: Often, judges will refer to standard dictionary definitions to determine the ordinary meaning of words.
  4. Avoiding judicial legislation: The rule aims to prevent judges from 'making law' by reading their own interpretations into statutes.