4. “ If the words of an Act are clear then you must follow them
even though they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has
nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has
committed an absurdity ”
5.
6.
7. v
Facts: A man owned a shop and had a flick knife on display in the shop
window. Attempts were made to prosecute him for offering for sale
offensive weapons.
Held: He was not offering the knife for sale it was simply an invitation to
treat.
8. House
v
Facts: The defendant pretended to be someone who had recently died in
order to use that person’s vote. It was an offence to “personate any
person entitled to vote”.
Held: As dead people cannot vote, the defendant was held not to have
committed an offence.
9. v
Facts: The claimant’s husband was killed while oiling points along a
railway line. Compensation was only payable if he had been “relaying or
repairing” the line.
The HL Held: oiling points was maintaining the line and not “relaying or
repairing”.
12. The literal rule involves giving
the words their plain, ordinary
literal meaning.
13. The literal rule involves the judge
applying The literal rule even if it
results in absurdity
14. Lord Esher in R v
Judge of the City of
London (1892)
“ If the words of an Act are clear then you must follow them
even though they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has
nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has
committed an absurdity ”
17. Fisher v Bell
v
Facts: A man owned a shop and had a flick knife on display in the shop
window. Attempts were made to prosecute him for offering for sale
offensive weapons.
Held: He was not offering the knife for sale it was simply an invitation to
treat.
18. Whiteley v Chappel
House
v
Facts: The defendant pretended to be someone who had recently died in
order to use that person’s vote. It was an offence to “personate any
person entitled to vote”.
Held: As dead people cannot vote, the defendant was held not to have
committed an offence.
19. LNER v Berriman
v
Facts: The claimant’s husband was killed while oiling points along a
railway line. Compensation was only payable if he had been “relaying or
repairing” the line.
The HL Held: oiling points was maintaining the line and not “relaying or
repairing”.
20. Problems with the rule are the
issue of absurdity / injustice and
lack of flexibility
