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

R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367

The defendant was charged with the offence of bigamy under s.57 of the
Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The statute states 'whosoever being
married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former
husband or wife is guilty of an offence'. Under a literal interpretation of
this section the offence would be impossible to commit since civil law
will not recognise a second marriage any attempt to marry in such
circumstances would not be recognised as a valid marriage.

Held:

The court applied the golden rule and held that the word 'marry' should
be interpreted as 'to go through a marriage ceremony'. The defendant's
conviction was upheld.

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.

Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7

Under the Official Secrets Act 1920 it was an offence to obstruct a

member of the armed forces 'in the vicinity' of a prohibited
palace. The defendant was actually in the prohibited place, rather
than 'in the vicinity' of it, at the time of obstruction.

Held:

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.

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.

Re Sigsworth [1935] 1 Ch 98

A son murdered his mother. She had not made a will. Under the statute
setting the law on intestacy he was her sole issue and stood to inherit her
entire estate. The court applied the Golden rule holding that an
application of the literal rule would lead to a repugnant result. He was
thus entitled to nothing.

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 parliaments 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 wont help if there is no absurdity in
the statute. For example the London and North Eastern
Railway v Berriman (1946) case, where the widow couldnt get
compensation because the wording of the statute didnt allow
for this circumstance.

Delegatus non potest delegare ( Definition & Explanation)

This is a Latin term which means- a delegate cannot delegate. A person to whom an
authority or a decision-making power has been delegated by a higher source, such
person cannot delegate the power to someone else, unless the original delegtor
authorizes him to do so.

For example- An attorney who has been given/delegated a legal authority via a power of
attorney, cannot, further delegate the excercise of that authority, without the consent of
that person who granted him the power of attorney.

This term is mostly used in constitutional law