A more thorough explanation:

The literal rule is a doctrine of judicial construction that requires judges to interpret a document or statute according to its literal terms, without looking to other sources to ascertain the meaning. This means that the words of the law are given their plain and ordinary meaning, even if the result is harsh or absurd.

For example, if a statute says that "no vehicles are allowed in the park," the literal rule would prohibit all vehicles, including bicycles and wheelchairs, from entering the park. Even if this result seems unreasonable, the court would still apply the literal rule and enforce the statute as written.

Another example is the case of Fisher v Bell, where a shopkeeper was charged with offering for sale an offensive weapon, namely a flick knife. The statute made it an offense to "offer for sale" any offensive weapon, but the shopkeeper argued that he had not technically "offered" the knife because it was displayed in a shop window with a price tag. The court applied the literal rule and held that the shopkeeper had indeed offered the knife for sale, even though he had not actively solicited customers to buy it.

These examples illustrate how the literal rule can lead to strict and sometimes counterintuitive outcomes, but it is still an important principle of statutory interpretation that helps ensure consistency and predictability in the law.