Literal rule of statutory interpretation

The Literal rule

The literal rule of statutory interpretation should be the first rule applied by judges. Under the literal rule, the words of the statute are given their natural or ordinary meaning and applied without the judge seeking to put a gloss on the words or seek to make sense of the statute.

Some examples of the literal rule:

R v Harris (1836) 7 C & P 446  Case summary



Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394  Case summary

Whitely v Chappel (1868) LR 4 QB 147    Case summary

Problems with the literal rule

There can be disagreement as to what amounts to the ordinary or natural meaning:

R v Maginnis [1987] AC 303 Case summary

Creates loopholes in the law:

R v Harris   (1836) 7 C & P 446       Case summary

Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394         Case summary

Partridge v Crittenden                   Case summary

Leads to injustice:

London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman [1946] AC 278 Case summary

Creates awkward precedents which require Parliamentary time to correct

Fails to recognise the complexities and limitations of English language

Undermines public confidence in the law

Advantages of the literal rule

Restricts the role of the judge

Provides no scope for judges to use their own opinions or prejudices

Upholds the separation of powers

Recognises Parliament as the supreme law maker