The R V Bentham Case

1859 Words8 Pages
The R v Bentham case , which presented the question of imitation firearms, and whether part of your body is covered in the legislation adopted the literal approach and as this directive was employed judges declared the word ‘possession’ did not include someone’s fingers. If words of the act are evident, they should be adhered to, even if they provoke a distinctive absurdity. The legislation specified that imitation firearms could be “anything which has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or missile”. It was held by Lord Bingham that Parliament obviously meant to legislate about imitation firearms and not to develop an offence of dishonesty, claiming to possess a firearm. Accordingly, possession of something needs to be independent from the body and the defendant was found not guilty. In the case of London and North Railway Co v Berriman , the literal interpretation produced an injustice that Parliament in all likelihood under no circumstances purposely meant to. The legal issue in this case was the contrast in the nature work produces, which does not alter the level of risk employees are subject to. Despite the fact that there are significant disadvantages to this rule there are some advantages, including limiting the function of the judiciary. Furthermore, constitutionally it honours parliamentary sovereignty and the entitlement of Parliament to produce law. Overall, it is indisputable that the literal rule, when
Get Access