Golden Rule Flashcards
Advantages of golden rule
Avoids absurd decisions
Puts parliaments true intentions into effect
Applies to words with multiple meanings
Allows for judicial creativity
Avoids absurd decision
Cause: judges can change meaning of words in act to ensure they make sense in circumstances
Example : R v Allen - would’ve been absurd to define ‘marry’ as ‘to be legally married’ as no one could ever commit bigamy. So judges chose meaning ‘to go through a ceremony’ to find D guilty as P wanted
Consequence: advantage as it means justice will be served in cases where, if literal rule was used , the wording of the act would have lead to absurdity
Puts parliaments true intentions into effect
Cause: judges can change the meaning of the words in an act to make the statute actually do what parliament wanted
Example: re sigsworth - unlikely P would of wanted D to benefit from killing his mother, so courts were able to prevent this from happening despite the wording
Consequence- advantage as judges can enforce the law to give effect to what parliament intended
Applies to words with multiple meanings
Cause: judges can choose between different meanings when using the narrow approach
Example: R v Allen - where marriage could have meant ‘legally marry’ or ‘go through a ceremony’ , the court were able to choose the second meaning to avoid absurdity
Consequence: advantage as it fixes problem with literal rule in these situations so makes the law quick and easy to interpret
Allows for judicial review
Cause: if words of an act will not achieve justice, judges can change the meaning of the words
Example: Re sigsworth - courts were able to prevent someone fro, benefitting from murder by changing the meaning of the literal words in the act rather than always allowing the inheritance to go to the next of kin.
Consequence: + saves p spending lots of time updating old laws as judges can work around any problems in wording
Disadvantages of golden rule
Creates uncertainty
Erodes parliamentary supremacy
Narrow approach is inflexible
Does not respect separation of powers
Creates uncertainty
Cause: all judges will differ in their opinion of what is absurd and so may disagree on when or how to change the words in an act
Example: re sigsworth - some judges may not have thought that D getting his inheritance was an absurd decision and so may have stuck with literal rule
Consequence: bad as it leads to inconsistent decisions and lawyers and defendants will be unable to prepare properly for their cases
Erodes parliamentary supremacy
Cause: Judges are allowed to change the wording of an act and so are clearly changing the law from how parliament wrote it
Example: re sigsworth - court assumed p meant the wording meant ‘only if D did not kill his mother’ even though that was not written in the act
Consequence: bad as it’s P job not judges to make the law. Therefore golden rule gives lots of undemocratic power to judges
Narrow approach is inflexible
Cause: judges still have to choose between two set meanings of a word
Example: re sigsworth- no meaning of the words would have resolved the problem of D getting the inheritance, only changing or inventing a new meaning would work
Consequence: bad as judges are still very restricted when judging the narrow approach and may not actually be able to avoid the absurdity
Does not respect separation of powers
Cause: allows judges to alter the law
Example: re sigsworth- judges chose to invent a new meaning for when someone should get their inheritance, rather than taking the acts as it was literally written
Consequence: bad as it’s not meant to be the judges role to make law and is therefore unlawful
