Golden Rule

Golden Rule

1. Advantages

   • Avoids absurd decisions
     • Judges can change words of an Act and make sure the words/meanings make sense in the circumstances
       • R v Allen - would have been absurd to use the meaning 'to be legally married' for marriage here, as then no one could ever commit bigamy. Instead chose the meaning 'to go through a ceremony' to make D guilty of what Parliament wanted
         • Advantage - means justice will be served in situations where D should(n't) be guilty, but the wording of the Act would otherwise lead to a bad decision
   • Gives rise to Parliament's true intentions
     • Judges can change the words of an Act to make the statute actually do what Parliament wanted
       • Re Sigsworth - the statute made it clear that D should get the inheritance despite killing his mother. The court used the broad approach of the golden rule to amend the statute to stop people getting inheritance by killing their family. Parliament won't promote murder for gain
         • Advantage - judges can do as Parliament intended even where a statute wasn't worded in a way that would do so
   • Applies to words with multiple meanings
     • Judges can choose between different meanings when using the narrow approach
       • R v Allen - marriage could be interpreted as 'legally married' or 'go through a ceremony', the court were able to choose the latter to avoid an absurd decision
         • Advantage - it fixes the problem with the literal rule in these situations and so makes the law quick and easy to interpret

2. Disadvantages

   • Creates uncertainty in the law
     • The golden rule creates uncertainty because there is no definition of absurdity, so judges may not agree on when/how to change words in an Act
       • Re Sigsworth - some judges may not have thought D getting his inheritance was an absurd decision and so would have stuck to the literal rule, but now it is unclear what other circumstances will deny inheritance
         • Disadvantage - leads to inconsistent decisions and lawyers and Ds will be unable to prepare for their cases
   • Erodes Parliamentary supremacy
     • Judges are allowed to change the wording of an Act and so are changing the law from how Parliament wrote it
       • Adler v George - changed the wording to 'in, or in the vicinity' of a prohibited place, which gave a whole new meaning to the phrase - one Parliament didn't specify
         • Disadvantage - it is Parliament's job, not a judge's, to make the law due to them being elected by society. The golden rule gives undemocratic power to judges
   • Inflexible (narrow approach)
     • Judges still have to choose between set meanings of a word
       • Adler v George - there may have been many definitions of vicinity, but none of them would have applied well to the facts
         • Disadvantage - Judges are still very restricted when using the narrow approach and may not actually be able to avoid the absurdity