The Golden Rule
- Created by: tomsturgeon
- Created on: 27-04-14 16:03
View mindmap
- Golden Rule
- Explanation of the rule
- Extension of the Literal rule which allows the court to look at the definition of a word or phrase but then avoid using it if it produces an absurdity
- It is more versatile as it is split up into two approaches
- The Narrow Approach: If there is more than one definition of a word, the judge can choose which one to apply, thus avoiding an absurdity.
- Allen: Defendant had married twice without his previous marriage 'being ended by a divorce.' Ther literal definition of marry would produce an absurdity. Judges took other definition: 'marry' means 'partaking in a marriage ceremony'
- The Broad Approach: When none of the definitions will produce a just result, judges can interpret words to give them another meaning.
- In Adler v George, the word 'proximity' was changed to mean inside as well as around a location
- This rule allows for judicial law making
- Extension of the Literal rule which allows the court to look at the definition of a word or phrase but then avoid using it if it produces an absurdity
- Advantages and Disadvantages
- Prevents absurd or unjust results
- Re: Sigsworth: Defendant not receiving his mothers inheritance after he murdered her. 'Issue' taken to mean any other family member.
- More likely than the Literal Rule to produce results that Parliament intended
- Use of this rule is unpredictable because it is unclear what an 'absurd or unjust' result actually is
- Too much power is given to unelected judiciary, it is not fair and is undemocratic
- Prevents absurd or unjust results
- Explanation of the rule
Comments
No comments have yet been made