## **Learning Outcomes**

This article explains the Golden Rule of statutory interpretation in the context of SQE1, showing how it operates as a controlled departure from the Literal Rule to prevent absurd, inconsistent, or repugnant outcomes in the courts of England and Wales. It details the rule’s underlying rationale, the distinction between its narrow and wide approaches, and the step-by-step reasoning judges use when choosing between competing interpretations. It presents the leading authorities, including Grey v Pearson, R v Allen, Adler v George, and Re Sigsworth, and demonstrates through worked examples how each illustrates the scope and limits of judicial modification of statutory language. It analyzes how the Golden Rule fits within the wider hierarchy of interpretive techniques alongside the Literal, Mischief, and purposive approaches, and how it interacts with key constitutional principles such as parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, separation of powers, and legal certainty. It also reviews common exam-style pitfalls, showing how to identify when the Golden Rule is genuinely engaged, how to label the approach correctly, and how to structure clear, case-supported answers under timed SQE1 conditions.

## **SQE1 Syllabus**

For SQE1, you are required to understand statutory interpretation in England and Wales as it relates to the Golden Rule, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- the legislative process, the structure of statutes, and reasons why statutory interpretation is needed in the English legal system
- the main approaches to statutory interpretation, including the Literal, Golden, Mischief, and Purposive rules, and how and when each is deployed by the courts
- the proper use of internal and external aids to interpretation, and the significance of the hierarchy among interpretive rules
- the ability of courts to modify the natural meaning of words to avoid certain results, and how this fits within the constitutional context and principles governing the functioning of Parliament and the courts
- the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and how judicial interpretation, including the use of the Golden Rule, operates without encroaching on that sovereignty
- the practical implications of the Golden Rule in real-world scenarios, the essential case law, and the potential limits and challenges to its use in English law.

## **Test Your Knowledge**

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. The Golden Rule of statutory interpretation is primarily used to:
   a) Determine the historical context of the statute.
   b) Give words their plain, ordinary dictionary meaning.
   c) Modify the literal meaning of words to avoid an absurd result.
   d) Ascertain the specific problem Parliament intended the Act to remedy.

2. Which case famously applied the Golden Rule to prevent a son who murdered his mother from inheriting her estate under intestacy rules?
   a) _Adler v George_
   b) _Fisher v Bell_
   c) _Pepper v Hart_
   d) _Re Sigsworth_

3. The 'narrow approach' of the Golden Rule is applied when:
   a) The statute produces a morally objectionable result.
   b) A word in the statute has more than one possible meaning.
   c) The literal meaning leads to inconsistency with another statute.
   d) Parliament's intention is completely unclear.

## **Introduction**

The process of statutory interpretation is central to the English legal system, recognising that even the most carefully drafted legislation may occasionally lead to outcomes that Parliament could not have intended. The Golden Rule acts as a modification of the Literal Rule. While the Literal Rule directs that statutory words be given their plain, ordinary meaning, the Golden Rule allows the judiciary to depart from that meaning, but only to avoid absurd, inconsistent, or repugnant results: situations where applying the ordinary meaning would offend common sense or fundamental principles of justice or policy.

> **Key Term: Golden Rule**
> An approach to statutory interpretation which permits the court to modify the literal meaning of statutory words if, by strictly applying the ordinary meaning, the outcome would be so absurd, unjust, or offensive as to frustrate Parliament's presumed intention.

The use of the Golden Rule preserves respect for the supremacy of Parliament (since judges are not rewriting law, but interpreting language to avoid contradiction with higher constitutional values or evident injustice) and supports the rule of law by ensuring that statutory application aligns with the basic standards of reasonableness and justice.

## **Applications of the Golden Rule**

The Golden Rule has developed along two lines: a narrow application and a wide application. Each addresses distinct types of interpretive issues and reflects different analytical steps within the court’s application of the rule.

### **The Narrow Approach**

The narrow approach is chosen where a word or phrase within a statute is ambiguous—i.e., it is genuinely open to two or more plausible interpretations. The court will select the interpretation which best avoids inconvenient, unjust, or absurd results.

This method stays as close as possible to the Literal Rule and is not concerned with correcting perceived defects or errors in statutory drafting, but rather with determining which of two reasonable readings is to be preferred.

> **Key Term: Narrow Approach (Golden Rule)**
> Where a word or phrase is ambiguous, the court adopts the meaning that avoids absurdity, unreasonable consequences, or contradictions within the statute.

### **Worked Example 1.1**

A byelaw provides: “It is prohibited to sleep _in_ the train station overnight.” John falls asleep on a bench immediately _outside_ the station entrance. The byelaw’s aim was to curb vagrancy around the station surrounds. Is John caught by this law on a literal meaning? Would the narrow Golden Rule apply?

> **Answer:** Literally, John has not slept "in" the station, so the Literal Rule would acquit him. However, if the word "in" is ambiguous—capable of meaning "within the building" or "within the precincts including the entryway"—the court may, via the narrow Golden Rule, adopt the broader sense if limiting it to inside the building would undermine the byelaw’s purpose. Yet, if "in" only bears the literal sense, the Golden Rule cannot be used; it simply cannot create ambiguity where none exists.

The narrow approach is most often seen where a strict literal reading would render a provision inoperative or nonsensical, such as in:

- **R v Allen (1872):** The term "marry" in the context of bigamy could mean "to become legally married" or "to undergo a marriage ceremony." If interpreted as the former, bigamy could never be committed; under the narrow approach, the court chose the latter.

### **The Wide Approach**

The wide approach is used where the words of a statute are clear and have only one meaning, but applying that meaning would result in a situation that is absurd or repugnant to public policy, or would undermine other fundamental principles. Unlike the narrow approach, the court is prepared to modify or adjust the words (sometimes reading words “into” the statute), or even refuse to apply them in a literal fashion, in order to avoid a manifestly unjust or unacceptable result.

> **Key Term: Wide Approach (Golden Rule)**
> Where statutory words have only one clear meaning, but applying that meaning leads to an outcome which is absurd, repugnant, or contrary to fundamental public policy, the court may modify or “gloss” the words to the extent needed to avoid the objectionable result.

This is a significant judicial power, deployed only in exceptional circumstances and narrowly confined to avoiding clearly unacceptable outcomes.

#### Key Examples

- **Re Sigsworth [1935] Ch 89:** A son who murdered his mother could not inherit under the Administration of Estates Act 1925, although the Act, literally construed, contained no exception for murderers. The court held that to allow the murderer to benefit would be so offensive to public policy that the language must be read as excluding murderers.

- **Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7:** The defendant, physically _inside_ a prohibited place, argued that he could not be convicted of “obstructing the forces _in the vicinity of_ a prohibited place”. The court widened the scope to read “in or in the vicinity of” to avoid the absurd result that obstruction just outside the base would be an offence, but more serious obstruction inside the base would not be.

In both cases, the literal wording was crystal clear, but literalism would have resulted in a contradiction of sense, justice, and the presumed intent of Parliament.

### **Worked Example 1.2**

Suppose a statute states: “No vehicle may be parked in or near a school zone.” A car is left within the school playground itself. The literal meaning is “near” but not within. Should the driver escape liability?

> **Answer:** On a literal approach, “near” does not include “in.” But this would be absurd, since the legislative aim is to prevent parking that may endanger children. Applying the wide Golden Rule, a court would interpret “near” to include the playground, or otherwise “in or near,” to prevent such absurdity.

### **Hierarchy & Interaction with Other Rules**

English courts typically start with the Literal Rule and only move to the Golden Rule where genuine absurdity, repugnance, or manifest injustice would result without intervention. Courts will not invoke the Golden Rule simply to repair “poor drafting” or substitute what they consider “better” policy. The Mischief Rule, which looks at the defect or problem in the law that Parliament intended to remedy, is broader in scope than the Golden Rule, as is the modern purposive approach, which looks to the overall intention and purpose of the legislation, including the legislative history where necessary.

#### The Role of Precedent

Use of the Golden Rule is guided and constrained by stare decisis (the doctrine of precedent), ensuring that modifications of meaning for the sake of avoiding absurdity or injustice are consistent, and the legal reasoning is traceable. Courts do not depart lightly from the interpretations established by higher courts or long-standing precedent. The hierarchy of courts ensures uniform interpretation, with the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal's rulings binding on lower courts.

> **Key Term: Absurdity**
> A result is absurd if it is manifestly irrational, unworkable, or fundamentally at odds with the overall sense of the legislation.
>
> **Key Term: Repugnancy**
> A result is repugnant if it offends a fundamental principle or public policy, or produces an outcome which Parliament could not reasonably have intended.

### **Worked Example 1.3**

The intestacy rules state: “The estate of a person dying intestate passes to their issue.” A son murders his mother. Absent modification, the son inherits. How should the rule be interpreted?

> **Answer:** As in _Re Sigsworth_, a murderer should not profit from their own crime. The wide approach of the Golden Rule allows the court to read in an implied exception (“save for someone who unlawfully kills the deceased”), ensuring that the statute operates consistently with public policy.

## **Landmark Cases**

The Golden Rule’s boundaries, rationale, and connection to core constitutional doctrines are best understood through leading authorities:

- **Grey v Pearson (1857):** Provided the classic formulation—ordinary meaning is to be followed “unless that would lead to some absurdity or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument.”
- **R v Allen (1872):** Narrow approach—“marry” interpreted as “go through a ceremony of marriage.”
- **Adler v George [1964]:** Wide approach—modified “in the vicinity” to include “in.”
- **Re Sigsworth [1935]:** Wide approach—prevented inheritance by a murderer, despite the statute’s silence.
- **Fisher v Bell [1961]:** Applied the Literal Rule, but the outcome (seller of flick knives not guilty as he had not offered “for sale,” only “invited to treat”) indirectly prompted Parliament to amend the statute—the Golden Rule might have avoided the loophole, but was not invoked as there was no genuine ambiguity or repugnancy present.

## **Exam Warning**

The Golden Rule is not an open door for “judicial creativity” or judicial law-making. It is an interpretive safety valve, meant only for cases where strict adherence to text would plainly contradict justice, public policy, or the statute’s coherent operation. Always identify whether you are facing narrow or wide ambiguity, and do not confuse the use of the Golden Rule with the Mischief Rule or the purposive approach. The latter two permit broader judicial inquiry but are only triggered in specific interpretative circumstances.

## **Revision Tip**

Before invoking the Golden Rule, always check if a literal or ordinary meaning would produce an absurd, unjust, or repugnant effect. If not, the rule cannot be used. State clearly which approach applies in a given scenario and justify your reasoning, referencing relevant case law (especially _Re Sigsworth_ and _Adler v George_) and the constitutional principles that limit judicial discretion.

## **Limitations of the Golden Rule**

The Golden Rule, while a valuable tool, remains one of strictly limited application. Key limitations and criticisms include:

- **Vagueness and Subjectivity:** What constitutes “absurdity” or “repugnancy” can be subjective, providing little concrete guidance and risking uncertainty or inconsistency. Judges may differ in their assessment of what is truly “absurd” or “contrary to public policy.”
- **Judicial Restraint:** Courts are careful to invoke the Golden Rule only where the departure from text is minimal and plainly necessary. The wide approach, in particular, is used sparingly to avoid encroaching on the legislative domain.
- **Respect for Parliamentary Sovereignty:** The Golden Rule allows the court to interpret, but not amend or fundamentally rewrite, legislation. Respect for parliamentary intent and the enacted language remains central.
- **Rule of Law and Certainty:** The limited scope of the Golden Rule supports legal certainty and predictability; frequent or broad use of the rule would undermine stability in statutory interpretation.
- **Rare Use in Practice:** Modern judicial practice favours a more purposive or Mischief Rule approach for ambiguous or defective statutes. The Golden Rule is invoked only when the other routes fail to avoid clear injustice or nonsensical results.

### Judicial Approach

Judges, in keeping with constitutional principles, are alert to the need to avoid undermining Parliament’s will. They will not use the Golden Rule to repair mere “bad drafting” or “unwise” legislative policy. Amendments or corrections beyond interpretation must be left to Parliament, not the courts.

#### Overlap with the Rule of Law and Separation of Powers

The Golden Rule exemplifies a balance: it is a mechanism of judicial self-restraint that avoids legislative encroachment (separation of powers) but recognises the higher necessity to prevent the law being a tool for manifest injustice, contradiction, or disorder (the rule of law). It ensures that statutes serve justice and coherent governance, but that the court does not become a parallel lawmaker.

### **Worked Example 1.4**

A statute states “No person shall set fire to, or attempt to set fire to, a place of worship,” but inadvertently omits the word “church.” A defendant sets fire to a church. A literal reading might suggest a loophole, but is this a case for the Golden Rule?

> **Answer:** If the omission leads to absurdity or contradiction as to what is covered and what is not (given the statute’s clear intended reach), the wide application of the Golden Rule may allow the court to read “church” into the list to preserve the law’s effect, provided this is plainly necessary and in line with legislative purpose.

## **Key Point Checklist**

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- The Golden Rule grants judges a safety valve to modify the literal meaning of statutory words to avoid an absurd, inconsistent, or repugnant result.
- It acts as a compromise between the strict Literal Rule and the broader Mischief Rule and Purposive Approach.
- The narrow approach applies when a word can bear more than one possible meaning; the least absurd or most just interpretation is preferred.
- The wide approach is used when a single, clear literal meaning would lead to a manifestly absurd, unjust, or repugnant result; words may be adjusted or glossed to prevent this.
- Foundational cases include _Grey v Pearson_, _Adler v George_, and _Re Sigsworth_.
- The Golden Rule is invoked cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances, with due deference to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the need for legal certainty.
- The constitutional principles of the separation of powers and rule of law shape, but also limit, the interpretive discretion permitted under the Golden Rule.

## **Key Terms and Concepts**

- Golden Rule
- Narrow Approach (Golden Rule)
- Wide Approach (Golden Rule)
- Absurdity
- Repugnancy

Statutory interpretation - The golden rule