Golden Rule

Q.
4 Golden rule
Golden Rule
This rule of statutory interpretation allows a shift from the ordinary sense of a word(s) if the
overall content of the document demands it. 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 evolved by Parke B (who later became Lord
Wensleydale) in Becke v Smith, 1836 and in Grey v Pearson, 1857, 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."
It is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute as it allows to adhere to the ordinary
meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with
the intention of the legislature to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest
absurdity or repugnance, in which case it allows the language to be varied or modified so as to
avoid such inconvenience.
This rule may be used in two ways.
A. It is applied most frequently in a narrow sense where there is some ambiguity or
absurdity in the words themselves. For example, imagine there may be a sign saying "Do
not use lifts in case of fire." Under the literal interpretation of this sign, people must
never use the lifts, in case there is a fire. However, this would be an absurd result, as the
intention of the person who made the sign is obviously to prevent people from using the
lifts only if there is currently a fire nearby. This was illustrated in the case of Lee vs
Knapp 1967 QB where the interpretation of the word "stop" was involved. Under Road
Traffic Act, 1960, a person causing an accident "shall stop" after the accident. In this
case, the driver stopped after causing the accident and then drove off. It was held that the
literal interpretation of the word stop is absurd and that the requirement under the act was
not fulfilled because the driver did not stop for a reasonable time so that interested parties
can make inquiries from him about the accident.
B. The second use of the golden rule is in a wider sense, to avoid a result that is obnoxious
to principles of public policy, even where words have only one meaning. Bedford vs
1
Bedford, 1935, is another interesting case that highlighted the use of this rule. It
concerned a case where a son murdered his mother and committed suicide. The courts
were required to rule on who then inherited the estate, the mother's family, or the son's
descendants. 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. The court held that if the son inherits the estate that would amount to profiting
from a crime and that would be repugnant to the act.
Thus, the Golden rule implies that if a strict interpretation of a statute would lead to an
absurd result then the meaning of the words should be so construed so as to lead to the
avoidance of such absurdity. A further corollary to this rule is that in case there are multiple
constructions to effect the Golden rule the one which favors the assessee should always be
taken. This rule is also known as the Rule of Reasonable Construction.
Advantages
1. This rule prevents absurd results in some cases containing situations that are completely
unimagined by the law makers.
2. It focuses on imparting justice instead of blindly enforcing the law.
Disadvantages
1. The golden rule provides no clear means to test the existence or extent of an absurdity. It
seems to depend on the result of each individual case. Whilst the golden rule has the
advantage of avoiding absurdities, it therefore has the disadvantage that no test exists to
determine what is an absurdity.
2. This rule tends to let the judiciary overpower the legislature by applying its own
standards of what is absurd and what it not.

Golden Rule

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Golden Rule

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Golden Rule

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Q.

You might also like