The problem posed is the approach to statutory interpretation by the judiciary. In theory, parliament is the supreme legislative authority of the country. However, it is up to the judiciary to interpret laws and as such can often change a law beyond what was originally intended, thus setting a precedent and arguably “creating” a law. Statutory interpretation concerns the role of judges when trying to apply an Act of Parliament to a real case. The language used in statues can cause problems, for example the word may not be very clear in the context of the sentence, it could be that the word is particularly old in light of today's context or it could mean that parliament did not foresee some situations that could arise in the future due to new developments or new technologies. An example of where the language was unclear can be seen in the case of Twining v Myers (1982), where the court had to decide whether roller skates constituted a “vehicle”. It can be a difficult process for the judiciary to fully understand what parliament intended to achieve or what it intended. As a result, there has been a development in the way words in statues can be interpreted. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The literal rule says that judges must apply the law to the letter, using the words of the law in their ordinary meaning. Lord Esher in R v Judge of the City of London Court (1892) states that if the words of an act are clear then they must be followed even if they lead to manifest absurdity. An example case where the literal was used is Whiteley v Chappell (1898). The facts of the case were that the defendant had been charged under a law under which it was an offense to impersonate "any person entitled to vote". The accused had pretended to be a person whose name was on the voter list, but he was dead. Applying the literal meaning of the statue's words, the defendant could not be found guilty because the dead, literally speaking, do not have the right to vote, so the defendant got away with it even though it was an absurd result. An advantage of the literal rule is that it prevents unelected judges from legislating, sticking to the literal rule means that judges don't get into that dangerous position of straying from what Parliament intended and creating laws that otherwise wouldn't have existed. The literal rule also makes the law more certain and easier to understand. However, not all documents are drafted perfectly. For example, in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 there was confusion over the words “type” and “breed”. Furthermore, not all acts cover every situation. There are new developments in societies that would not have been foreseen. Words can have more than one meaning and the act is unclear as the words change over time. A literal rule can lead to an absurd, unfair, or unfair decision. This can be seen in the case of London & North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman (1946), where a widow was denied compensation because the Fatal Accidents Act stated that a lookout man should only be provided "for the purpose of relaying or repairing" in as opposed to oiling. .Remember: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay The Golden Rule was developed to address the absurd, unfair, and unjust situations arising from the application of the literal rule. This rule gives judges a little more leeway, allowing them to refer to various other relevant documents.