QUESTION 1a)
Interpretation is the elucidating of any form of communication. This can help give meaning to words. Common law principles are sometimes elucidated by judges in the settlement of cases. In interpreting legislation there are rules one needs to adhere to, to construe the meaning of words. In courts the starting for the interpretation of statues is the Literal Rule. All words in a statue which are given their ordinary and natural meaning, the Literal Rule gives it. Even if the outcome or result is silly, under this rule the Literal meaning must be followed.
In R v The City of London Court Judge (1892) Lord Esher stated that once words have clarity in an act they must be followed even if they lead to manifest absurdity. An example of the Literal Rule was in the case of Whiteley v Chappel (1868) states that in the aim of preventing electoral malpractice a statue made it an offense to impersonate ‘any person who was entitled to vote’ at an election. The accused had impersonated the dead and therefore he was acquitted. A dead person was clearly not entitled to vote. Advantages of the Literal Rule are that it promotes certainty. It reduces litigation and it is constitutionally correct.
Disadvantage of this rule is that it is an automatic and unthinking response. It fails to take into account of the inevitable imperfection of draftsmanship. Often may the Literal Rule be the correct one but it is not automatically so. When the answer to the problems cannot be found in words of a statue the Literal Rule is useless.
The Golden Rule is used when the Literal Rule seems to cause incongruous or discordant results. It is an extension of the Literal Rule. Disputed words, court gives them there ordinary or Literal meaning unless there is absurdity or incongruity and a more alternative interpretation may be used as in the case of Adler v George (1964). In Re