Golden Rule

• Golden Rule:


  Where the literal rule leads to absurdity the judge can give the wording its more sensible meaning (Lord Wensleydale).
• Narrow Approach 


  words given their more sensible meaning (Adler v George & Allen)
• Board Approach 


  where literal rule would lead to a repugnant situation the Act can be interpreted to avoid this (Sigsworth)
• Advantages


  1. Respects parliamentary sovereignty
  2. Escape route
  3. Parliamentary Intent
  4. Can be used to close loopholes
• Respects Parliamentary Sovereignty 


  it still uses the word in the Act, just gives them their more sensible meaning.
• Escape route 


  where the judges consider the LR leads to the incorrect result they can use the GR as an escape route and give the words their more sensible meaning e.g. Adler v George.
• Parliamentary intent 


  allows them to do what parliament intended as in Allen where they clearly wanted to make bigamy a crime.
• Can be used to close loopholes

  as in both Adler and Allen where the lawyers tried to argue the LR and allow their clients to avoid liability simply on the narrow interpretation of the words.
• Disadvantages


  1. feeble parachute
  2. limited application
  3. too much power to unelected judges
  4. unpredictable
• Feeble parachute 


  links with the escape route as Zander found it could only be used if the words could have a different meaning and only if the LR gave an absurd result.
• Limited application 


  won’t work in all cases as some words have only one meaning. 
• Too much power to unelected judges 


  judges should be applying the words used by parliament and simply applying the law.  Any problems should be fixed by parliament. 
• Unpredictable

  no way that lawyers will know when the judges might apply the MR instead of the LR.  Making outcomes unpredictable and makes it harder to advise clients.