The literal rule this rule is the rule that is respecting the wish of parliament the most compared to the other two rules. The reason that this rule is most respectful to parliament is because the judge if they use this rule is taking the literal meaning of the words; therefore reading the legislation in the way parliament intended it to be used.
An example of a case in which a judge used the literal rule is the Fisher V Bell (1961) case. This case involves the Restriction Of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 in the case a shop owner was charged with offering for sale a flick knife, which under the act made in parliament it was illegal. The shop owner was found not guilty of the offence because the judge took the literal meaning of the phrase “offer for sale” and the shop owner was not guilty because displaying the knife in a shop window was just an “invitation to treat” therefore it was an invitation for people to offer to buy which was not illegal under the act passed in parliament. This case was important legally because after this case a new act was passed in parliament making it an offence to “expose for the purpose of sale an offensive weapon”
Another example of a Judge using the literal rule is the Whitley V Chappell 1868 case involves the electoral Law which and the phrase in question was “it is an offence to personate another person entitled to vote”. In Chappell and Whitley (1868) the defendant was charged with impersonating a dead man to obtain an additional vote in an election. The judge in this case used the literal rule and the defendant was not found guilty because a dead person is not entitled to vote so a crime was not committed even though really it was wrong to use the name of somebody who had died to vote twice. This case was important because in the mid-19th century a parallel doctrine of interpretation started to develop. This asserted that the “literal rule” should be used unless it would lead to an absurdity.
The golden rule is only used if the literal meaning makes an obscured outcome to a case in which parliament would not of intended. The golden rule can be used by judges to substitute a phase or word to make the rest of the Act make sense and so as it is used to get a reasonable outcome to a case if the literal meaning could lead to an obscured result.
A case that gives a good example of when the “Golden Rule” was used is the R V Allen (1872) case in which a man had committed bigamy and under S.57 Offences against the person Act 1861 Which states “A person who is married and Marries Again”. If the Judge in this case took the literal meaning of the phrase the defendant would not of been found guilty of getting married twice. The reason for this is because when somebody is married it is impossible for him or her to get married again by law. In this case the judge changed to phrase to “having gone through a ceremony of marriage” so the defendant was found guilty. This was an important case legally because it shows that sometimes parliament can pass Acts that will not serve their purpose because of the way in which the are written, so it shows it can be good for judges to use the “golden Rule”
Another case which show the importance of Judges using the “Golden Rule” Is Re Sigsworth (1935) In this case the defendant had murdered his mother, the defendants mother did not make a will so by law he stood to inherit her estate as next of kin, by being her “Issue”. The judge in this case used the “Golden Rule” and decided that “issue” would not be entitled to inherit where they had murdered the deceased.
The final way in which judges can interpret statutes, which I am going to look at, is “ the Mischief rule” this rule is the one rule that shows the least respect for parliament, because judges can be a lot more creative with the statues made in parliament using this rule. This rule allows judges to look back at the former law and find out what the new law was trying to remedy.
Heydo's Case (1584) This established the Mischief Rule and gives a Judge more discretion than the Literal or Golden Rule. In Heydon's Case it was said there were four points a court should consider:
1. What was the common law before the making of the Act?
2. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?
3. What is the remedy Parliament hath resolved?
4. The true reason of the remedy.
One case that demonstrates the use of the “mischief Rule” is the Smiths V Hughes case (1960). This case involves the Street offences Act 1959 the case involves six women that had been charged with soliciting “in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution”. However, one woman had been on a balcony and others behind the windows of ground floor rooms of a block of flats. The court said they were guilty because the law was created to stop people from being molested or solicited by prostitutes and even though they were in their own property they were still intentional soliciting men walking passed.
There are many advantages and disadvantages for all three of the interpretational rules used by judges to interpret statutes made in Parliament. I will focus on the advantages and disadvantages of the “literal rule” the main advantage of judges using the “literal rule£” is that it respects the words used by parliament and the wish of parliament. Another advantage of the “literal rule” is that it encourages parliament to make the words in statutes more precise, so as judges will understand them more and to make sure that they serve there purpose. The final advantage of the “literal rule” is that it prevents judges from rewriting the law and it makes sure that the law is the same for everybody.
A disadvantage of judges using the “literal rule” is that judges tend to exaggerate the actual literal meanings of phrases and words, without looking into the wider meaning, and in this case could end up not being what parliament intended. Another disadvantage is that it makes parliament think that the statutes passed are perfect and don’t need changing whereas if it is brought to their attention they could do something to change the way the statute has been written. The final and most important disadvantage is that is can lead to extremely absurd or harsh decisions like in the Fisher V Bell (1961) case, which resulted in the complete opposite of what parliament intended and resulted in the law having to be changed.