The Literal Rule.

The Literal Rule

This rule gives all the words in a statute their ordinary and natural meaning, on the principle that the best way to interpret the will of parliament is to follow the literal meaning of the words it has been used. Under this rule, the literal meaning must be followed, even if the result is absurd.

Advantages of the literal rule:

The literal rule respect parliamentary sovereignty, giving the courts a restricted role and leaving law making to those elected for the job.    

Disadvantage of the literal rule:

Where use of the literal rule does lead to absurd or obviously unjust conclusions, it can hardly be said to be enacting the will of Parliament, since Parliament is unlikely to have intended absurdity and injustice.

In addition to the literal rule is useless where the answer to a problem simply cannot be found in the words of the statute. The Law Commission in 1969 pointed out that interpretation based only on literal meanings ‘assumes unattainable perfection in draftmanship’; even the most talented and experienced draftsmen cannot predict every situation to which legislation may have to be applied. The same word may mean different things to different people and words also shift their meanings over time.  

 An example of the literal rule is:

Case of Whiteley v Chappell (1868)

“…The defendant pretended to be someone who had died in order to use that person’s vote. It was a statutory offence to ‘personate any person entitled to vote, the defendant was held not to have committed an offence…”

The Golden Rule

This provide that if the literal rule gives an absurd result, which parliament could not have intended, then the judge can substitute a reasonable meaning in the light of the statute as a whole.

Advantage of the golden rule

The golden rule can prevent the absurdity and injustice caused by the literal rule, and help the courts put into practice what parliament really means.

Disadvantage of the golden rule

The law commission noted in 1969 that the ‘rule’ provided no clear meaning of an ‘absurd result’. As in practice that was judged by reference to whether a particular interpretation was irreconcilable with the general policy of the legislature, the golden rule turns out to be a less explicit from of the mischief rule.

Some judges have suggested that a court may depart from the ordinary meaning where that would lead to absurdity. In Grey v Pearson (1857 Lord Wensleydale said:

"… the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther."

This became known as "Lord Wensleydale's golden rule". It only applies where the words are ambiguous. An interpretation that is not absurd is to be preferred to one that is. An example is:

R v Allen (1872) The Law Commission (1969) noted that:

• The rule provided no clear means to test the existence of the characteristics of absurdity, inconsistency or inconvenience, or to measure their quality or extent.
  
• As it seemed that "absurdity" was in practice judged by reference to whether a particular interpretation was irreconcilable with the general policy of the legislature "the golden rule turns out to be a less explicit form of the mischief rule".