golden rule advantages - model answer

• Firstly, the implementation prevents unfair outcomes in Law. The golden rule allows a juage to avoid an unfair result in a case by substituting one word which may cause problems. This keeps the law in tact but avoids an unfair outcome, unlike the literal rule. For example, in a case such as Cheeseman v DPP, if the court had used the golden rule, the absurd result of the defendant being found not guilty could have been avoided, if they had substituted the word "passenger".
• Another advantage is that the golden rule respects parliament. It still applies the statute that was created by parliament. However, it is able to amend a particular word or phrase to avoid an absurd outcome that parliament wouldn't want. This does not detract from Parliamentary supremacy or democracy as it is still using the wording of the legislation. For example, in Re. Sigsworth, the defendant should not have been allowed to inherit his mothers property after he killed her. It would not have been parliaments intention to let him inherit and this was voided by using the golden rule.
• Evaluation 3:

  One of the main advantages of the golden rule is that it is a compromise between the strict approach under the literal rule and the loose approach under the mischief rule. It tries to avoid giving a judge too much power, as this is undemocratic, in deciding how to interpret the law, whilst trying to give them enough power to avoid absurd outcomes and ensure that the law delivers justice.
• Evaluation 3:

  For example, in the case of R v Allen, bigamy was unenforceable in its current form under the literal rule. The golden rule allowed changes to jus one word (marry) which solves this problem. This delivered justice without giving too much power to judges.
• A final advantage is that it is able to consider and interpret the law in a way that parliament intended. In the case of Re Sigsworth it would have been absurd for the defendant to profit from killing his mother and the golden rule allowed for interpretation of the law to create a more appropriate outcome. Based off this, it can only assume that parliament did not intend to pass an absurd law and is available to avoid this in any event.