The Golden Rule

The Golden Rule:

• Start by looking at the Literal Rule, but to avoid an interpretation that would be 'absurd', the judge can substitute reasonable meaning in the light of the statute as a whole
• The Golden Rule can be applied through narrow or wider application

Below are some example cases of when the Golden Rule has been used:

Narrow application of the Golden Rule:

Adler v George (1964):

• The Official Secrets Act 1920 made it an offence to obstruct Her Majesty's Forces 'in the vicinity' of a prohibited place
• The defendants obstructed HM Forces in a prohibited area, but they argued that they were not guilty as the literal wording used in the Act did not apply to them, for 'in the vicinity' means 'outside but close to it' whereas they were in the prohibited area itself
• The court found them guilty to avoid an absurd result, stating it should be read as 'in or in the vicinity of'the prohibited place

Wider application of the Golden Rule:

Re Sigsworth (1935):

• The defendant murdered his mother. As she had no will, he stood to inherit all of her estate as her next of kin, under the Administration of Justice Act (1925)
• It was deemed by the judge that letting the defendant inherit his mother's money would be absurd, as Parliament could have never intended or forseen that a murderer could financially benefit from their crime
• The defendant did not inherit his mother's estate due to the use of the Golden rule

Advantages of the Golden Rule:

• Provides an escape route from absurd literal meanings
• Allows the judge to choose the most sensible meaning of words
• Can avoid a repugnant situation

Disadvantages of the Golden Rule:

• Limited in its use and used rarely
• Not possible to predict when the court will use it
• The rule provides no clear meaning of what is an absurd result