|
Advantages
- There is no room for judicial law making (law made by judges) and law making is then left to those democratically elected for the role (parliament). This is because it follows the exact words used by Parliament. So Parliament makes law and judges just apply it. It thus upholds the notion of parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers theory. Judges such as Lord Scarman and Lord Simonds state that they must follow law created by Parliament and that it is not their job to change law.
- Literal rule can highlight problems to Parliament and then lead to amending Acts being passed. E.g. in Fisher v Bell, the strict application of the word "offer" prompted parliament to later amend the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 to include displaying. (It now includes 'or exposes or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or hire') This resulted in better law.
- The law is more certain and consistent. This is because judges just follow the words Parliament has written and give all words plain and ordinary meaning. This therefore means it is possible to predict what the outcome of a case will be. This allows lawyers to advise their clients on the likely outcome of a case.
- (DO NOT MENTION IF Q SAYS ADV & DIS.) The literal rule is not subjective. The judges views or opinions are not brought in and judges will just interpret the Act by giving their ordinary meaning.
|
Disadvantages
- Literal rule produces absurdity. Professor Michael Zander states that to take a word literally even if it results in injustice is irresponsible. E.g. the decision in Berriman seems unfair. Mrs Berriman didn't get compensation because the railway company only had to provide a look out for someone relaying or repairing the track and her husabnd was 'maintaining the track when she died. As the words 'relaying an repairing' were strictly defined she did not get compensation which seems harsh and unfair.
- D's who seem guilty can get away with an offence due to words being given a technical meaning. In Fisher v Bell 'offer for sale' was interpreted narrowly so as to exclude someone displaying knives with a price tag. This was not what Parliament intended and they had to change the law.
- Literal rule assumes that every Act is perfectly worded. This is not the case otherwise there wouldn't be the need for statutory
interpretation. For example, some words have more than one meaning and the
meaning of other words changes over time, for example, the word ‘passenger’ in
Cheeseman was originally held to mean someone passing by on foot.
- Literal rule does not take into account
sociological or technological developments. For example, if the literal rule was
applied in Royal College of Nursing, then the nurses would have been liable for
carrying out abortions under the Abortion Act 1967 but Parliament probably only
mentioned registered medical practitioners as at the time nurses were unable to
carry out abortions but when the case was heard medical advances meant nurses
could also carry them out. Therefore the rule prevents old statutes to be applied to
modern society.
|
Comments
No comments have yet been made