Golden Rule

• Key Definition :

  The golden rule to interpretation is MODIFICATION of the literal rule. It has been defined by Lord Wensleydale (cheese) in Grey v Pearson. But, it can only be used by judges when using the literal meaning of a word would lead to an absurd or unjust result. So the judge can avoid absurdity by using the golden rule. There are two approaches, a narrow and wider approach.
• Narrow Approach -

  Can be used when a word or phrase has more than one literal meaning and to use one of them would result in absurdity. The courts may then choose between the two meanings to avoid this absurdity.

  Maddox v Storer

  The narrow approach was used and it was held that 'adapted' could also be taken to mean 'suitable for', so the D was guilty.
• Wider Approach -

  Can be used when the word or phrase of an Act has only one clear, literal meaning, but to apply that meaning would lead to an absurd outcome. The courts may then modify the meaning of that word or phrase to avoid the absurd outcome.

  Re Sigsworth

  Under the literal rule, D would have benefitted from his crime and inherited his mums estate as he was literally her 'next of kin'. The court used the golden rule to prevent this by adding that he would not be entitled to inherit if they had killed the deceased.
• Advantage 1)

  Prevents absurd and unjust results.

  
  

  This is because judges are modifying the law to achieve justice and stop unjust results. Re Sigsworth - Under the literal rule the son would have inherited his mums money even tho he killed her, so the golden rule was used to prevent an unjust outcome.
• Advantage 2)

  Respects Parliamentary Supremacy.

  
  

  Judges are not changing the word or phrase used in the Act, they are simply choosing the other word in the narrow approach. So they do not change the meanings of words or phrases. R v Allen - Judges merely adapted the word marry to avoid an absurd outcome.
• Advantage 3)

  Saves Parliament time.

  
  

  If judges are able to modify an Act by changing the meanings of words or phrases then this allows judges to close gaps in the law when using the golden rule. So this does not waste valuable Parliamentary time. R v Allen - By applying the second definition to find the d guilty judges reformed the Act without Parliament.
• Advantage 4)

  The Narrow Approach respects the Rule of Law.

  
  

  This is because judges are merely deciding to correct the definition of a word to use. This means it will still be easy for lawyers to predict the outcomes of a case, providing certainty within the law. Maddox v Storer - Because there were two meanings it was easy to predict the outcomes of this case.
• Disadvantage 1)

  Lack of clarification of the term absurdity

  
  

  The golden rule can be used when the literal rule will lead to absurdity, but there is no clarification on what an absurdity is. This means that one judge may decide an outcome is absurd that another judge would not deem absurd. So they are changing the law and should leave this to Parliament as they are the supreme law-making body.
• Disadvantage 2)

  Doesn't respect Parliamentary Sovereignty

  
  

  This is because when using the broad approach judges modify and change the meanings, which is not part of their constitutional role of solely applying the law. They should leave this to Parliament as they are the supreme law-making body.
• Disadvantage 3)

  Wider Approach can lead to uncertainty

  
  

  This is because it is not always possible to predict whether judges will use the wider approach or what changes they will make. This makes it difficult for lawyers to advise clients on the outcomes. Which does not uphold the rule of law.