golden rule disadvantages - model answer

• Some would argue that the golden rule still gives judges too much power, by allowing judges to pick the meaning of a particular word, the Judge is shaping the outcome of the case. This may allow bias, prejudice or subjectivity to become an issue. In the case of Alder v George, the defendant was charged with causing disturbance 'in the vicinity' however he was on the premise at the time. The judge used the golden rule and decided that in the vicinity meant on the property, this is not the meaning of this word and proves a Judge abusing their power.
• It is also very subjective which can lead to inconsistent application of the law. The golden rule allows a judge to change one word or phrase if it delivers an 'absurd' outcome. This is problematic as different judges will view 'absurd' in different ways and may not use the rule when they should. The case of LNER v Berriman is often cited as an absurd/unfair outcome.

  However, the Judges did not interpret the law this way and a legitimate claim for compensation was rejected. The golden rule should have been used here, but the Judges failed to use this opportunity.
• Professor Zander argues that the golden rule is a 'feeble parachute' in that it does not allow a judge enough flexibility to avoid injustice under the literal rule. Even though the definition of bigamy under S.56 Offences Against Person Act 1861 was highlighted as being unenforceable in R v Allen, it still hasn't been changed properly and the written law hasn't properly been reformed. The golden rule only offers a temporary solution.
• A final disadvantage is its limited application. The golden rule is known to have limited effectiveness due to the fact that it is rarely used. The rare use is based on its limited uses, ie it does not give more option to the Judges then the literal approach. This leaves lawyers and clients at a distinct disadvantage as they will be unsure of whether and the rule will be used and what the outcome will be.