Golden rule

Question 1

Rule

Answer 1

Judges follow literal rule until there is an absurdity, then they follow golden rule

Question 2

Narrow approach

Answer 2

Judge chooses most sensible meaning of word if two meanings
One meaning, must be taken (Lord reid)
r v allen - bigamy offence to marry two people, however second wouldn’t be valid, marriage meant ceremony
Adler v George - law was “in vicinity” of base - judge found vicinity to also mean inside base

Question 3

Wide approach

Answer 3

If word has only one meaning yet absurd, judge adapts meaning for common sense outcome
Re Sigsworth - killed mother but still stood to inherit fortune, would be repugnant, inheritance laws wide to forbid this

Question 4

Adv: respects exact wording of parliament

Answer 4

Up to a point then provides and then provides escape route where harsh decision made (allen) which is what parliament would intend

Question 5

Adv: Chooses most sensible outcome

Answer 5

Provides common sense decisions to avoid unfair results, providing justice to individuals (Re Sigsworth)

Question 6

Adv: Closes loopholes in the law

Answer 6

Prevents defendants from being able to get away with wrongdoing by relying on strict interpretation (adler v george)

Question 7

Adv: Saves time for parliament

Answer 7

Judges decision sets precedent, so saves parliament time to fix it (allen)

Question 8

Disadv: Limited use

Answer 8

Only rare occassions to be used, not known when judge thinks its absurd (adler v george)

Question 9

Disadv: Judges change meaning of law

Answer 9

Goes against separation of powers as judges shouldn’t be lawmakers, that’s parliament, so undemocratic (Re sigsworth)

Question 10

Disadv: requires absurd outcome

Answer 10

Not just injustice: something that is unfair wouldnt allow judge to change law (LNER v berriman)

Question 11

Disadv: Unpredictable

Answer 11

No guidelines given as to when judges will use rule, so cannot advise clients effectively (Michael Zander; “feeble parachute”)