The Golden Rule is used when a literal view of an act would lead to an absurd decision.
The Broad Approach :
Where the word has one clear meaning, but that meaning would lead to an absurd result, the court can modify the meanings of the words to avoid the problem. - Lord Wensleydale
The Narrow Approach :
If a phrase has multiple meanings, the Judge can choose the most appropriate meaning to fit the case, but he cannot inventnew meanings. - Lord Reid
R v Allen [1872]
D charged with bigamy. D convicted because of the second definition of marry.
The Narrow Approach
Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Re Sigsworth [1935]
V died intestate. D murdered V so he wasn’t her “issue” and didn’t inherit her estate.
Administration of Estates Act [1925]
The Golden Rule
The judge will either:
pick the most appropriate meaning
invent a new meaning of the word
Offences Against the Person Act [1861]
Whosoever, being married, shall marry any other person during the life of their wife or husband is guilty of bigamy.
Marry
To enter that legal relationship of marriage
To have the ceremony of marriage
Under marriage law, if you get married whilst your current spouse is still alive, your second marriage is void.
Therefore, it’s not physically possible to marry during the life of your spouse so bigamy is the impossible crime if the first definition of “marry“ is applied.
D in R v Allen [1872] was convicted of bigamy because the judge applied the second meaning of marry.
Administration of Estates Act [1925]
Succession to real estate on intestacy shall be distributed to the issue
The court decided in Re Sigsworth that the statute’s words, although clear, include the principle that prevents a murderer from claiming a benefit of his victim having no will.
The Issue
a person’s spouse or next of kin
The court didn’t want D in Re Sigsworth to receive V’s estate.
The Administration of Estates Act 1925 could not mean the estate be distributed to the issue if the issue had killed the deceased person.
