Golden Rule of Interpretation

Introduction:
Initially Golden Rule of Interpretation was called ‘Logical Interpretation or Logical Rule of
Interpretation. Lord Wensleydale for the first time ever called it ‘Golden Rule’.

The golden rule

This rule is a modification of the literal rule. It states that if the literal rule produces an absurdity,
then the court should look for another meaning of the words to avoid that absurd result. The rule
was closely defined by Lord Wensleydale in Grey v Pearson (1857) HL Cas 61, who stated:

The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some
absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the
grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and
inconsistency, but no farther.

So, The Golden Rule is a modification of The Literal Rule to be used to avoid an absurd
outcome.

The main theme of Golden rule or Logical Rule is that when two options are open, the
court should adopt the more logical of two. For example, suppose parliament enacted or
passed a law saying that the Government is empowered to acquire any land for the public
interest. Accordingly, government acquired a piece of land without any payment of
compensation since there is no reference in the law as to payment of compensation. Then
the aggrieved person filed a case before court of law claiming the compensation for his land.
Here law is silent about the payment of compensation. But the law does not clear it whether
the government acquire land with compensation or without compensation.

Government party.> Here the Court decide that the original land owner will get
compensation to be paid by the government.

CASES EXAMPLE OF GOLDEN RULE

 Adler v George (1964)

The rule was used in the case of Adler v George (1964) to avoid an absurd result. Under
section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920, it was an offence to obstruct HM Forces in the
vicinity of a prohibited place. Mr Frank Adler had in fact been arrested whilst obstructing
such forces within such a prohibited place (Markham Royal Air Force Station, Norfolk). He
argued that he was not in the vicinity of a prohibited place as he was actually in a prohibited
place. The court applied the golden rule to extend the literal wording of the statute to cover
the action committed by the defendant. If the literal rule had been applied, it would have
produced absurdity, as someone protesting near the base would be committing an offence
whilst someone protesting in it would not.
  Re Sigsworth (1935)

Re Sigsworth (1935) concerned a case where a son had murdered his mother. The mother
had not made a will and under the Administration of Justice Act 1925 her estate would be
inherited by her next of kin, i.e. her son. There was no ambiguity in the words of the Act, but
the court was not prepared to let the son who had murdered his mother benefit from his
crime. It was held that the literal rule should not apply and that the golden rule should be
used to prevent the repugnant situation of the son inheriting.

 R v Allen case (1872)

The Golden Rule was used in the R v Allen case (1872). In this case the defendant was
charged with bigamy (s.57 of offences against the person act 1861) which, under statutes
states: 'whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the
former husband or wife is guilty of an offence'.

Under The Literal Rule, bigamy would be impossible because civil courts do not recognise
second marriages, so The Golden Rule was applied to determine that the word ‘marry’
should be seen as ‘to go through ceremony’ and the conviction was upheld.

 Royal College of Nursing (RCN) v DHSS (1981)

The Golden Rule was used to handle a dispute in the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) v DHSS
(1981) case. Here the RCN challenged the involvement of nurses in abortions. Under the
offences against the person (1861) it is an offence for anyone to carry out an abortion.
However, the abortion act (1967) claims an absolute defence for medically registered
practitioners to carry out abortions.

ADVANTAGES OF THE GOLDEN RULE

 It respects the words of the parliament except in limited situations; the golden rule
provides an escape route where there is a problem with using the literal meaning.
 It allows the judge to choose the most sensible meaning where there is more than
one meaning to the words in the Act or Statute.
 It can also provide reasonable decisions in cases where the literal rule would lead to
repugnant situations (this goes for the wider meaning) - This is present in the Re
 Sigsworth case in the case examples, because allowing the son to benefit from his
crime would have been unjust.

 The main advantage of The Golden Rule is that drafting errors in statutes can be
corrected immediately. This is seen in the R v Allen (1872) case where the loopholes
were closed, the decision was in line with parliament’s intentions and it gave a more
just outcome.

 A major disadvantage of The Golden Rule is that judges can technically change the
law by changing the meaning of words in statutes. They can, potentially infringing
the separation of powers between legal and legislature.

Disadvantages of The Golden Rule

 There are no real guidelines as to when it can be used

 what seems to be absurd to one judge may not be to another - this means a
cases outcome is decided upon the judge, rather than the law
 It is very limited in it is use, so it is only used on rare occasions
 It's not always possible to predict when courts will use the golden rule,
making it hard for lawyers and people who are advising their clients

 The Golden Rule won’t help if there is no absurdity in the statute. For
example the London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman (1946) case,
where the widow couldn’t get compensation because the wording of the
statute didn’t allow for this circumstance.