Statutory Interpretation consists of four rules in which the judges use in court which entails the literal, golden, mischief rules, and purposive approach. The rule in which judges use first when interpreting the statute is the literal rule; this is where the meaning of the words in the statutes is in its natural unambiguous meaning. The literal interpretation has its advantages and disadvantages when they are applied. This can be seen through the comparison of the literal rule among the other rules along with examples through case laws.
Firstly, in the literal rule, words are simply applied as it is written, which is the best and safest option for judges since they do not have much power of interpretation. The second form of ruling is the golden rule, which is where the entirety of the statute is interpreted when the literal interpretation leads to absurdity. In this ruling, the statute is not applied as it is written, instead it looks at the statute as a whole. The next form of ruling is the mischief rule, this is applied when the words are ambiguous, unlike the literal rule where words are interpreted in its unambiguous definition. This also infers from the whole situation rather than the statute. Lastly, the fourth interpretation method is the purposive approach which was recently established in 1969 as the United Kingdom became a part of the European Union interpreting the text through the judges as the European laws are written vaguely. The various interpretations show both the strengths and weaknesses of literal interpretation.
The literal interpretation has various advantages which includes the restriction of the role of judges and confirmation of the separation of powers. The separation of powers is a theory where the state should have its powers divided between the government, parliament and judges. This shows the restriction in the judges’ position along with their inability to be prejudice and assert their opinions. This also demonstrates that the Parliament is recognized as the legislature, being the lawmakers of the state. Though the literal interpretation has several advantages in favor of the separation of powers, it still serves as a disadvantage to the role of the judge.
Consequently, the literal ruling has numerous disadvantages which entails of injustice and disagreement of definitions. These disadvantages are portrayed through case laws, such as R v Maginnis, and Fisher v Bell. In the case law of R v Maginnis, it delineantes the disagreement of the unambiguous meaning of the word ‘supply’ among the various judges. Other case laws showing the disadvantages of the literal entails loopholes. In Fisher v Bell, the defendant found a loophole through the word ‘offer’ as the court used the literal rule, resulting in the defendant not being guilty. Another example of the defendant finding a loophole is the case law, R v Harris. In this case, the defendant used the fact that he bit the victim’s nose rather than ‘stab, cut, or wound’ the victim. The verdict of the defendant resulted not guilty as the judges used the literal interpretation. As it is shown through the various cases, there are injustices that are seen through the use of the literal interpretation which shows its downfall.
Furthermore, there are more disadvantages with the literal rule including the correction of precedents and trust of the public in the law. Precedents which enact rules would have to be corrected if they are found misleading in a case such as the R v Maginnis case as the judges clarified what the word supply implies when it refers to the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971. There is also the conflict of recognizing the complexity and limitations of the English language. This could be seen through the case law of Fisher v Bell where the word ‘offer’ showed the limitations of the English lexicon. Subsequently, the literal interpretation could impair and erode the public’s confidence in the law as criminals can find leeways and justifications for their actions. Ultimately, the literal rule provides more ambiguities and limitations which can lead to unjustifiable verdicts in court cases.
In essence, the literal rule has its strengths and weaknesses in statutory interpretation. This was illustrated through the various case laws which mostly showed its disadvantages as well as its inconsistencies. The literal ruling is in favor of the judges as they are not overstepping their limits with the separation of powers though this could lead to the mistrust of people in the law.
2019-10-27-1572200091