golden rule

• modification of the literal rule to avoid interpretation which is absurd
• narrow and broad approach
• extension of literal rule, can only be used if literal rule produces absurd outcome
• narrow - if word has 2 meanings, judge can choose meaning which avoids absurdity

  'to marry' bigamy (r v allen)
• narrow - if word has 2 meanings, court may only choose between possible meanings of word or phrase

  'in or in vicinity of' (adler v george)
• broad - word has only one meaning but literal meaning would result in absurdity, judge can read into statute, modify words to avoid absurdity

  murdered his mum, under literal interpretation would inherit from her as next of kin (absurd) read into act - but not where issue has killed deceased (re sigsworth)
• ++ prevent problems (injustice) of literally rule (re sigsworth)
• ++ respect exact word of parliament except in limited situations
• ++ rule can put into practice what parliament intended, narrow approach judge can choose appropriate meaning (r v allen)
• ++ provides check on strictness of literal rule, more sensible decisions made by judges (re sigsworth)
• ++ respects parliamentary supremacy, judge slightly alters words
• -- absurdity may mean different things to different judges (subjective)
• -- golden rule not effective check on literal rule because it is limited
• -- may give judge too much discretion, lead to conviction (adler v george)
• -- law commission said no clear definition of what will costitute an absurd result and what will not