Assess the value of the golden rule

• Jones v DPP


  Lord Reid said if a word is ambiguous the judge may choose between possible meanings of the word in order to avoid an absurd outcome.
• extension of literal rule as it still respects the authority of Parliament as our sovereign law-maker

  It makes judges law-finders rather than law-makers which is clearly valuable in a democracy
• making judges into ‘law-makers'


  they are not confining themselves strictly only to the words of the Act thereby devaluing the separation of powers between the legislator and judiciary as well as the supremacy of Parliament.
• The Law Commission


  argued that this rule is of limited value as it provides no clear means to test the existence of the characteristics of absurdity or inconsistency
• described as ‘an unpredictable safety-valve’

  there are no real guidelines on when it should be used. What seems absurd to one judge may not be absurd to another.
• the golden rule has proven valuable in a number of cases so repugnant or absurd outcomes can be avoided, which the literal rule by itself could create
• R v Allen


  where a strict use of the literal rule could have meant that the serious crime of bigamy could not be committed at all when the word marriage needed interpreting as it had two meanings and in legally married or marriage ceremony
• Re Sigsworth


  where a mother’s killer would be entitled to become her heir leading to an unjust decision had this rule not been used.
• R v Allen and Re Sigsworth

  demonstrates the rule has some value in cases like these by providing justice for the victims.
• Adler v George


  the Official Secrets Act 1920 made it an offence to be found ‘in the vicinity of a prohibited place’. The accused was arrested inside the prohibited place, but the court held that ‘in the vicinity of’ could mean ‘being in on the prohibited place or in the vicinity of’ the prohibited place in order to avoid an absurd result.
• Adler v George

  The golden rule was of value here as it closed a loophole in the Act and the decision was in line with Parliaments intentions.
• In conclusion, it does in effect mean judges can change the law by changing words in statute but it does mean loopholes are closed and brings about justice in some cases.