Statutory interpretation - Golden rule Flashcards
Definiton
Starts by looking at the literal meaning of an Act but if using the literal rule would lead to an absurd or unjust result, then the court can use the Golden rule to avoid it.
Jones v DPP
Narrow approach - if a word is ambiguous, the judge can pick which meaning to use but judge cannot create meaning. Lord Reid: “If they (words) are capable of more than one meaning, then you can choose between those meanings, but beyond this you cannot go”.
R v Allen
Narrow approach - Offences Against the Person Act 1861 states that it is an offence to “marry” another person when married to another. The term mary has two definitions:
1. To legally marry (which wouldn’t be possible as D is already married)
2. To go through marriage ceremony
The court used the second definition to find D guilty.
Grey v Pearson
This allows a judge to modify the meaning in a statue of the literal meaning would lead to an absurd or repugnant result. Lord Wensleydale: “The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid that absurdity… but no further”
Adler v George
Broad approach - The Official Secrets Act 1925 made it an offence to be found “in the vicinity of a prohibited”. The accused was found in the the prohibited place so court added words “in or” at the start to find D guilty.
Re Sigsworth
The Administration of Estates Act 1920 says that property of one person will pass onto the next of kin unless there is a will. Sigsworth killed his mum for her money. As it is absurd that he should inherit from whom he had murdered the court said that you should not benefit from your wrongdoing. The Act was interpreted to only apply to those who had not committed an offence to inherit the money.
Advantage - Avoids absurdity and injustice
Avoids absurdity and injustice caused by the literal rule by allowing judges to 1. Choose between two or more possible meanings of a word (narrow approach) and 2. Modify the meaning of a word (broad approach). E.g. Judges avoided absurdity in R v Allen by using the narrow approach to choose a more appropriate definition to the word “marry”, enabling them to find D guilty of Bigamy. If they had used the literal rule D would have been acquitted as the literal meaning for the word “marry” is to legally marry and this is impossible when already married.
Advantage - Courts keep to Parliament’s wishes
Helps courts to put into practice parliament’s intentions by interpreting statutes in such a way that sensible outcomes are achieved and absurd ones are avoided. E.g. Re Sigsworth, Parliament would not have wanted a criminal to benefit from his crime which is what would have happened if the literal rule was used.
Disadvantage - No definition of “absurd”
No definition of “absurd”, judges will interpret the word in different ways so some judges will use the Golden rule more readily than others which will lead to the law becoming uncertain, inconsistent and unfair. This has a negative effect on lawyers, defendants and the public as the latter need certainty to know what they can and cannot legally do and the two former so they can accurately predict the outcome of a case.
Disadvantage - Undermine parliamentary supremacy
Can undermine parliamentary supremacy as the broad approach allows judges to modify the meaning of a word whilst the narrow approach allows for judges to choose between the meanings of a word to avoid absurd results. E.g. Adler v George the judges changed the law by adding extra words “in or in the vicinity of” in the Official Secrets Act 1920 and found D guilty.
