Advantages and Disadvantages of the Golden Rule
- teachlawhub
- Feb 1
- 4 min read
Updated: Feb 2
In our previous blog posts we have explored the different rules that are used by judges to interpret the words or phrases of an Act of Parliament. You can access this blog here.
Within this blog we are going to delve further into the rules of statutory interpretation and evaluate the use of the golden rule. We will explore the advantages and disadvantages of the golden rule in detail.
You can access the evaluation of each of the rules of interpretation by clicking each of the links below.
The Golden Rule
The golden rule allows judges to modify the literal meaning of a word or phrase in a statute where applying the literal rule would lead to an absurd result. It acts as a middle ground between the strict literal rule and more flexible approaches.
Advantages of the Golden Rule
A key advantage of the golden rule is that it prevents unjust outcomes, here judges can use the narrow approach to choose the least absurd meaning or use the wider approach to modify the meanings of words, avoiding the absurd outcome and creating justice. Legal academic, Michael Zander described the golden rule as a safety valve, because it allows judges to depart from the literal meaning only where necessary. This ensures that the law operates sensibly and doesn’t create unnecessary absurd outcomes whilst still largely respecting statutory wording (judges choose or modify meanings, they do not fully create laws).
This is demonstrated in R v Allen (1872). The literal interpretation of the word marry would have meant that a person could never be guilty of bigamy, as a second valid marriage is legally impossible. So instead, the court used the golden rule and interpreted marry to mean going through a ceremony of marriage, avoiding an absurd outcome and allowing the offence to function as Parliament intended.
Also, in Adler v George (1964), the court interpreted the phrase in the vicinity of to include being inside a prohibited place. If the literal meaning had been used, it would have created a loophole where someone inside the area would escape liability. The decision respected Parliament’s intention while avoiding absurdity.
Under the narrow approach, the golden rule respects parliamentary sovereignty because judges are not creating new meanings but choosing between existing ones. This means judges remain within their constitutional role of interpretation rather than law making.
Another important advantage of the golden rule is that it can save Parliamentary time by allowing judges to correct minor drafting errors without requiring the Act of Parliament to be amended by Parliament. Here judges can correct the drafting error, and this will provide timely justice as opposed to Parliament correcting the error which would take a significant amount of time. When the literal rule leads to an absurd outcome, judges can use the golden rule instead and modify the meaning of words to make the law work and provide justice. This avoids the need for Parliament to intervene every time that a technical flaw is exposed. As a result, the golden rule ensures the law operates effectively in practice and reduces the pressure on Parliament to constantly reform legislation. This makes the legal system more efficient while still largely respecting Parliament’s wording and authority.
Disadvantages of the Golden Rule
A key weakness of the golden rule is that there is no clear definition of what constitutes an absurd outcome. This gives judges a significant amount of discretion to decide when the golden rule should be applied, leading to inconsistency between cases. One judge may view an outcome as absurd, while another may not, resulting in different interpretations of the same statutory wording.
This lack of clarity undermines certainty in the law, as lawyers and citizens cannot reliably predict when the golden rule will be used or the outcome of the case, as the judge may modify the meaning of a word within the case. This conflicts with the rule of law, which requires laws to be applied consistently and predictably.
Under the broad approach, the golden rule can undermine parliamentary sovereignty because judges may significantly alter the meaning of statutory words. Instead of choosing between existing meanings, judges effectively rewrite the law to avoid an undesirable outcome. This risks judges stepping beyond their constitutional role of interpreting the law and into the role of law-making, which should be reserved for Parliament.
This issue is demonstrated in Re Sigsworth (1935). The court prevented a son who had murdered his mother from inheriting her estate under the Administration of Estates Act. Although the decision was morally justified, the judges departed from the clear wording of the statute. This shows how the broad approach allows judges to override Parliament’s words, raising concerns about judicial law making.
The golden rule has been criticised for creating uncertainty because it is unpredictable in its application. Michael Zander described it as a feeble safety valve, highlighting that judges use it inconsistently and without clear guidance. Lawyers cannot always foresee whether a judge will apply the literal rule or depart from it using the golden rule, or how far the judge will go in modifying statutory language. Lawyers will also not be able to predict how a judge will modify the meaning of a word or phrase, this makes it hard to advise their clients. The law is also not certain as when judges modify the meanings of words or phrases they are in effect changing their initial meaning, this means that the meanings of words or phrases will be different from the start of the case to what they will be at the end of the case. This unpredictability reduces certainty within the law and makes it difficult for individuals to know what the law is and it also makes it difficult for lawyers to advise clients. As a result, although the golden rule may prevent absurd outcomes, it does so at the cost of legal certainty.
Click below to download the Free TeachLaw Student Activity Pack
