levo
Log inStart

Statutory Interpretation

The literal rule

  • 3 things to know
  • Component 1

Overview

Giving words their plain ordinary meaning whatever the result, worked through Whiteley v Chappell, Berriman, Fisher v Bell, Harris and Cheeseman, and why it is still where a judge starts.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Your recallNot started
Numbers

What did Cheeseman v DPP [1990] decide?

Key term

State the literal rule.

Key term

Why do judges use the literal rule?

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

  1. 1

    State the literal rule.

    Model answer

    The literal rule gives the words of a statute their plain, ordinary and grammatical meaning. The court applies that meaning even where the outcome appears harsh or absurd.

  2. 2

    Why do judges use the literal rule?

    Model answer

    The literal rule respects parliamentary sovereignty by giving effect to the words Parliament chose. Judges applying it avoid substituting their own view of what the law should say.

  3. 3

    What did Whiteley v Chappell (1868) decide?

    Model answer

    Whiteley v Chappell (1868) acquitted a man who had voted using the name of a dead person. A dead man is not entitled to vote, so the defendant had not impersonated a person entitled to vote.

  4. 4

    What did London and North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman [1946] decide?

    Model answer

    London and North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman [1946] denied compensation to the widow of a rail worker killed while oiling points. Oiling counted as maintaining the track and not as relaying or repairing it, so no lookout was required.

  5. 5

    What did Fisher v Bell [1961] decide?

    Model answer

    Fisher v Bell [1961] held that a flick knife displayed in a shop window was not offered for sale. Displaying goods is an invitation to treat in contract law, so no offence was committed under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.

  6. 6

    How did Parliament respond to Fisher v Bell [1961]?

    Model answer

    Parliament passed the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1961 to close the gap. The new Act made it an offence to expose such a weapon for sale.

See the rest and revise

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.

1Closed book
2Open book
3Closed book

The 3-step method, run for you

Answer cold, learn it, then prove it stuck. Levo tracks the jump between your first attempt and your last.

Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent

Cram a whole paper in one sitting

Sort every topic into what you know and what you do not, then drill only the weak ones.

The court sits in .
StrasbourgLondonParis

Blank Blitz makes facts automatic

Rapid timed gap-fills on the terms and numbers you need to recall without thinking.

AAn interim injunction restrains publication before trial.
BPublication cannot be undone.
CAn injunction may be the only effective remedy.

Build It gets the exam shape right

Assemble a full-mark answer from its marking points, in the order an examiner wants them.

A Public Bill changes the general law.
TrueFalse

Test It catches misconceptions

Spot the fault in a statement. The traps are the mistakes students actually make.

721941163128510

Brain Breaks between sessions

Short focus games to reset attention, so the next set lands better than the last.

Every question in Statutory Interpretation, on a schedule.

Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.

Start revising, £5 a monthSee how the method works

Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.