Lawmaking, statutory interpretation, 2. The Golden Rule
Once Parliament has passed an Act, it then calls to the Court to apply the statute in a particular case
This can lead to difficulties where the fact of the case may not have been envisaged by Parliament
or where there is mistrust in areas or ambiguity in the statute
The Interpretation Act of 1978 provides certain basic definitions, but the singular includes plural and here includes two
In addition, the Court has developed rules to assist judges in interpreting statutes
The rules of statutory interpretation are 1. The Literal Rule, 2. The Golden Rule, 3. The Miscis Rules
In addition, there is the Pertinative Approach. Although referred to as Rules, they are not strictly binding
Some commentators have argued that they are used to justify a decision rather than assisting the decision-making process
This video will focus on explaining the Golden Rule. Look out for other videos in this series explaining the other rules
There are also videos discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each rule
Judges are assisted by various aids to interpretation. These can be internal aids or external aids
Look out for videos on these too. The Golden Rule. The Golden Rule develops as a way of circumventing the strict approach of the Literal Rule
The judges should start by first applying the Literal Rule. The Golden Rule of statutory interpretation may only be applied where an application of the Literal Rule would lead to an absurdity
The courts may then apply a secondary meaning. This was established in Riverware Commissioner D. Adamson in 1876
Absurdity is a strong word and its use suggests that the Golden Rule should be sparingly used
Judges cannot simply use the Golden Rule to get a different outcome
The judges cannot apply it where the application of the Literal Rule would be unfair or harsh
In R. N. E. R. B. Velleman, the application of the Literal Rule was unfair
The widow was denied compensation because her husband was killed whilst oiling the track rather than repairing it
The result was unfair but not assaid, so the Golden Rule could not be applied
It falls to the judges to decide if a particular result would be absurd
Judges' opinions may differ in what is and what is not absurd
Case examples of the Golden Rule include R. V. Allen, R. E. Sidgworth, Maddox v. Shorer and Adler v. Schwartz
In R. V. Allen, the defendant was charged with the offence of bigamy under Section 57 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861
Cassatti states, ''Whoever has been married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an offence.'
Under initial interpretation of this section, the offence would be impossible to commit
Civil law will not recognise a second marriage, so any attempt to marry in such circumstances would not be a valid marriage
It would be absurd for Parliament to create an offence that could never be committed
The Court applied the Golden Rule and changed the word ''marry'' to ''go through a marriage ceremony.'
There are two approaches to the Golden Rule. There is the ''narrow'' approach and the ''broad'' approach
The ''narrow'' approach is where the words of the statute are capable of another interpretation
R. V. Allen is an example of this. The word ''marry'' could either mean ''legally married'' or alternatively it could mean ''go through a marriage ceremony.'
A further example of the ''narrow'' approach is Mavic's V4a. The words ''adapted to'' have two possible meanings
One, the ordinary meaning of ''modified'' and two, the secondary meaning of ''made for the purpose of.'
The defendant was thus found guilty of driving at more than 30 miles per hour in a vehicle adapted to carry more than seven passengers
He was driving a minibus which was made to carry 11 passengers and had never been modified
The ''broad'' approach is where the words are not capable of another meaning. The court can abandon the wording altogether
This can be seen in Rue Cicere. A son murdered his mother
She had not made a will. Under the statute setting the law on incestacy, he was her sole issue and stood to inherit her entire estate
The court declared the Golden Rule. Told him that an application of the literal rule would lead to irreconcilable results
He was entitled to nothing. Under the Official Secret Act 1920, it was an offense to obstruct a member of the armed forces in the vicinity of a prohibited place
In Adler v. George, the defendant was actually in the prohibited place rather than in the vicinity of it at the time of obstruction
The court applied the Golden Rule. It would be absurd for a person to be liable if they were near to a prohibited place and not if they were actually in it
His conviction was therefore upheld. In summary, the Golden Rule is one of three rules used by judges when interpreting statutes
Judges should start with the literal rule and only apply the Golden Rule where the literal rule leads to an absurdity
The judges may then apply secondary rules. There are two approaches to the Golden Rule
The narrow and broad approach. This video is part of a series of videos on law from www.e-lawsources.co.uk
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel www.youtube.com slash f-e-lawsources. It's free to do so and will help us to keep providing these videos
Check out our website which provides lecture outlines and case summaries. See also www.e-lawvision.org.uk for revision games and quizzes
Thanks for watching