The Literal Rule
- Created by: tomsturgeon
- Created on: 27-04-14 15:48
View mindmap
- Literal Rule
- Explanation of the rule
- 'Words or phrases in an Act should take their ordinary, natural or dictionary definitions when interpreted.'
- Lord Reid: Pinner v Everett
- Whiteley v Chappell: An offence to impersonate someone who is entitled to vote in an election'
- Defendant impersonated a dead man. Not 'entitled' to vote. Literally not liable.
- Fisher v Bell: 'An offence to sell or offer for sale offensive weaponry'
- To 'sell' interpreted as an 'invitation to treat' which is in turn, actually opened by the customer. Literally the D was not liable.
- 'Words or phrases in an Act should take their ordinary, natural or dictionary definitions when interpreted.'
- Advantages and Disadvantages
- Michael Zander: 'Mechanical and divorced from the realities of use of language'
- Law Commission: 'Ignores the limitations of language'
- Can produce absurd and unjust results
- In LNER v Berriman, his wife was not liable because oiling the tracks was not 'track maintenance'.
- Assumes Parliamentary draftsmen have done their job perfectly
- Doesn't always give effect to the intentions of Parliament
- More than one definition to some words
- Respects Parliamentary sovereignty
- Law making left to those elected
- Can highlight, to Parliament, defects in the law
- Partridge v Crittenden
- Michael Zander: 'Mechanical and divorced from the realities of use of language'
- Explanation of the rule
Comments
No comments have yet been made