Golden Rule: Definition
When LR leads to absurd outcome, judge can use alternative wording
Golden Rule: Narrow & Wide Approach
Narrow: Judge uses other meaning of word
Wide: Judge modifies the wording because the word only has one meaning
Golden Rule: Allen
D charged with bigamy - Civil law says second marriage not recognised so not possible to be guilty. Wording changed to “Going through the marriage process with intention to marry”. - found guilty of bigamy
Golden Rule: Re Sigworth
D killed his mother to inherit her estate as he is next of kin (administration of justice act 1925). Court was not going to allow him to get away with this and changed the rule - Next of Kin (IF THEY KILL) not inheriting estate.
Golden Rule: Advantages
- Upholds Parliament’s beliefs by changing as little as possible by using literal rule first
However, judges should not be able to create own rules - breaching parliamentary Sovereignty (Dicey) - Only used in Absurd cases.
- Not used enough and leads to unfair decisions such as cheeseman, leading to a sex offender to not be found guilty.
- allows the judge to use a sensible meaning of a word, avoiding absurd outcomes.
- narrow rule used to make sure laws aren’t changed too much if possible (Allen)
Golden Rule: Disadvantages
- Absurd outcome not defined and does not have a clear outcome
However, absurd outcomes are obvious - Could be seen as avoiding law reform, as many areas are faulty
However, it costs a lot of time and money to reform laws, so it provides a temporary fix - Can only be used in absurd outcomes, not unfair ones. Michael Zander - “Feeble Parachute”
- Wide Approach means judges can change rules without parliament’s agreement - breaking parliaments sovereignty.
