Golden rule

• The Golden Rule - Narrow Approach

  Where there is two meanings of a word or phrase - the judge chooses which to follow to avoid an absurdity.
• R v Allen


  Judges chose between the two definitions of marry and used the second meaning 'the marriage ceremony' to avoid an absurdity
• The Golden Rule - The Wider Approach

  When a word or phrase has one clear meaning, judges modify that meaning to avoid an absurd outcome
• Re Sigsworth


  Judges modified the Administration of Justice Act 1925 so that he could not inherits his mother's estate as he killed her
• Golden Rule Advantages

  Prevents absurd results - provides fairness - Re Sigsworth, judge prevented D from inheriting

  Respects parliamentary supremecy - narrow approach, using meanings - R v Allen, chose between two.

  Saves time - no need to change the law - R v Allen, courts applied most suitable definition.

  Narrow Approach respects rule of law - predictability - Maddox v Storer, chose meaning that upheld certainty of law.
• Golden Rule Disadvantages

  Lack of Clarification for Absurdity - inconsistent - unpredictable.

  Doesn‘t respect Parliamentary sovereignty - modify or change meanings - Adler v George, changed meaning of vicinity.

  Unpredictable - Michael Zander states rule is unpredictable - parliament may not intend chosen meaning.

  Wide Approach leads to uncertainty - difficult to advise - Re Sigsworth, may have been told not guilty but judges changed this.
• Maddox v Storer


  ”adapted” could include originally constructed.
• Adler v George


  modified “in the vicinity“ to include if they were inside a prohibited place.