Larceny Argument Essay

The premise of the literal rule put forwards the simple approach that the will and intention of Parliament are best discovered by following the literal and natural meaning of the word in the statute[1]. In other words, the law must be read in its entirety and given its’ usual dictionary meaning. Thus, it is not a requisite for judges to look elsewhere for aid in interpreting the statute.[2] This argument was supported in the Sussex Peerage case,[3] where Tindal Chief Justice stated “If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous then no more can be necessary than to expound words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words alone themselves do best declare the intention of the lawgiver”. In addition, this sentiment …show more content…
This provision allowed that a person can be convicted of such an offence where there is clear and substantive evidence that the person is ‘found in the building’ with the intent to commit an offence. Upon appeal, his conviction was quashed and De La Bastide declared that: There was no such evidence in the instant case, for on a full and reasonable interpretation of the evidence which was that the appellant was standing on the ground outside of a window with both hands inside the house, he cannot in this court’s view be said to have been ‘found in the building’ on a literal or ordinary interpretation of the words of 29(d) of the Larceny Ordinance. This rule can be utilized to your advantage as when looking on the face of ‘the Act’ against the facts of your case; it can be argued that it’s directed to the jurors disclosing information made within the jury room. This could be arguable as only jurors would have the knowledge of such interactions at their disposal to disclose. However, the word ‘disclose’ in its’ literal meaning ‘to make public’ might be can be argued to be wide enough to encompass both disclosures by jurors and the publication by the