Advantages and Disadvantages of the Literal Rule.
- teachlawhub
- Feb 1
- 4 min read
Updated: Feb 2
In our previous blog post we explored the different rules that are used by judges to interpret the words or phrases of an Act of Parliament. You can access this blog here.
Within this blog we are going to delve further into the rules of statutory interpretation and evaluate the use of the literal rule. We will explore the advantages and disadvantages of the literal rule in detail.
You can access the evaluation of each of the rules of interpretation by clicking each of the links below.
The Literal Rule
The literal rule requires judges to give words in a statute their ordinary, dictionary meaning, even if this leads to an undesirable outcome.
Advantages of the Literal Rule
One key advantage of the literal rule is that it promotes predictability. Judges apply the ordinary, dictionary meaning of words, often using a dictionary from the time the Act was passed. This means that lawyers can advise clients with confidence, as the courts will use the natural, ordinary and dictionary meaning of the word. This also means that citizens are also to understand the laws and rules that apply to them, as the courts will apply the dictionary meaning to the words and they will not change their meaning.
This is demonstrated in LNER v Berriman. The court applied the strict dictionary meaning to the terms relaying and repairing. They did not change the law to cover the actions of maintaining. Although the outcome was controversial, it was predictable because the judge followed established dictionary definitions rather than personal opinion or changing the law.
The literal rule also promotes certainty by ensuring consistency across cases. The principle of certainty means that the law will be certain, this means that laws and legal rules must be clear, precise, and unambiguous. Here the law and the meanings of legal rules will not change within a case. When judges apply the natural, ordinary and dictionary meaning to words, the principle of certainty is maintained as the law will not change during the case. This means that similar cases are likely to be decided in the same way. This supports the rule of law, which requires laws to be applied consistently and not arbitrarily. Certainty is particularly important in criminal law, where individuals must know in advance what conduct is illegal.
The literal rule strongly respects parliamentary sovereignty because judges do not change, add to, or remove words from legislation. The constitutional role of a judge is simply to apply the law as written, recognising that Parliament is the supreme law making body. This ensures judges remain within their constitutional role.
This can be seen in Whitely v Chappell (1868), where the court refused to extend the meaning of the statute to cover dead voters. By doing so, the judges demonstrated that correcting errors or oversights in legislation is a matter for Parliament to deal with and not the courts.
A final advantage is that the literal rule can expose weaknesses or gaps in legislation. When judges apply the law strictly, even where the result is absurd, it draws attention to poor drafting and signals that reform may be needed. This then encourages Parliament to change the law or address the issue that has been highlighted by the courts.
Disadvantages of the Literal Rule
A major criticism of the literal rule is that it can lead to outcomes that are clearly absurd or unjust because the judge must apply the ordinary dictionary meaning of words, even where this defeats common sense or fairness. Judges are unable to consider the wider context or purpose of the legislation, which can result in decisions that create absurd and unjust outcomes for the parties that are involved in the case. This will undermine justice and public confidence in the legal system. This rigid approach prioritises certainty over fairness, which is particularly problematic in criminal cases where unjust outcomes can have serious consequences.
This problem is illustrated in R v Harris (1836). The defendant bit off the victim’s nose, yet the court held that this did not amount to a stab, cut or a wound because no instrument was used. By applying the literal meaning of the word, the court reached an illogical outcome where serious harm was not criminally recognised. This demonstrates how the literal rule can undermine justice by producing outcomes Parliament could not have intended.
Another significant disadvantage of the literal rule is that it places unrealistic expectations upon the parliamentary draftsperson. By using the literal rule, it makes judges assume that legislation is perfectly drafted and that every word accurately reflects Parliament’s intention. In reality, language is inherently complex and ambiguous, and mistakes or gaps in drafting are inevitable. However, when judges use the literal rule, they are unable to correct these errors, even where the meaning is clearly flawed or incomplete.
This can result in loopholes within the law that allow individuals to avoid liability, not because Parliament intended this, but because of imperfect wording. Responsibility is shifted entirely onto Parliament to amend legislation, which can delay justice and reduce the effectiveness of the law in practice.
Finally, the literal rule also prevents the law from adapting to changes in modern society. Judges often rely on dictionary meanings from the time the Act was passed, meaning that words are interpreted using outdated definitions that may no longer reflect contemporary understanding. As society, technology, and social behaviour develop, the law risks becoming disconnected from modern realities.
This rigidity means that the literal rule struggles to deal with new situations Parliament could not have anticipated, limiting the law’s ability to remain relevant. As a result, the literal rule prioritises certainty at the expense of flexibility, which can undermine the effectiveness of the legal system in a rapidly changing society and means that in certain circumstances when using the literal rule, the law becomes out of date.
Click below to download the Free TeachLaw Student Activity Pack.
Comments