criticisms - lets unelected judges create law, undermining Parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers, especially when judges ignore clear text for perceived "purpose" or policy (e.g., R v Registrar General ex parte Smith). Critics also point to the uncertainty of identifying a single, clear legislative purpose, as multiple, conflicting purposes often exist, making interpretation less predictable than literal methods. This approach can lead to judges imposing their own views, creating an "unjustified elitism".