The problem posed concerns the approaches to the interpretation of laws by the judiciary. In theory, Parliament is the supreme legislative authority in the country. However, it is up to the judiciary to interpret laws and, as such, it can often modify a law beyond what was originally intended, thereby setting a precedent and, arguably, "making" a law. Statutory interpretation concerns the role of judges when attempting to apply an Act of Parliament to a real case. The language used in the statues may be problematic, for example the word may not be very clear in the context of the sentence, it may be that the word is particularly old in light of the current context or it may mean that parliament does not has not anticipated certain situations that may arise in the future due to new developments or new technologies. An example of a case 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 difficult for the judiciary to fully understand what parliament intends to achieve or desire. As a result, there has been an evolution in how the words in the statues can be interpreted. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The literal rule says that judges must apply the law literally – using the words of the law in their ordinary meaning. Lord Esher in R v Judge of the City of London Court (1892) said that if the words of an act are clear you must follow them even if they lead to manifest absurdity. An example of where the literal was used is Whiteley v Chappell (1898). The facts of the case were that the defendant was charged under a law that made it a misdemeanor to impersonate “any person entitled to vote.” The accused had posed as a person whose name appeared on the electoral roll, but he had died. Applying the literal meaning of the statue's words, the accused cannot be found guilty because dead people, literally speaking, do not have the right to vote, so the accused got away with it, even though the result was absurd. An advantage of the literal rule is that it prevents unelected judges from legislating, by sticking to the literal rule it means that judges do not enter into this dangerous position of straying from what Parliament planned and created laws that otherwise would not have existed. The literal rule also makes the law safer and easier to understand. However, not all laws are perfectly written. For example, in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, there was confusion between the words "type" and "breed". Additionally, not all laws cover all situations. There are new developments in societies that would not have been anticipated. Words can have more than one meaning and the act can become unclear as the words change over time. A literal rule can lead to an absurd, unfair, or unjust decision. This can be seen in the case of London & North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman (1946), where a widow was refused compensation because the Fatal Accidents Act stated that a watchman should only be provided " "only for relay or repair purposes", as opposed to oiling. .Keep in mind: This is just a sample.Get a custom paper from our expert writers now.Get a custom essayThe Golden Rule was developed to combat absurd, unfair and.