Statutory interpretation - The golden rule

Learning Outcomes

This article explains the Golden Rule of statutory interpretation, building upon the Literal Rule. It outlines the circumstances in which the Golden Rule may be applied and differentiates between its narrow and wide applications. For the SQE1 assessments, you will need to understand how judges use the Golden Rule to modify the literal meaning of statutory words to avoid absurdity or repugnancy, ensuring interpretations align with presumed parliamentary intent. This knowledge will enable you to identify and apply this interpretive principle in SQE1-style single best answer questions.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the principles of statutory interpretation as part of the Legal System of England and Wales. You will need to demonstrate knowledge of the main rules judges apply when interpreting statutes, including the Golden Rule, and how it differs from other approaches like the Literal Rule and the Mischief Rule.

As you work through this article, remember to pay particular attention in your revision to:

• the rationale behind the Golden Rule as a modification of the Literal Rule
• the distinction between the narrow and wide applications of the Golden Rule
• key case examples illustrating the application of the Golden Rule
• the limitations and potential criticisms of using the Golden Rule in statutory interpretation.

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:
   1. Determine the historical context of the statute.
   2. Give words their plain, ordinary dictionary meaning.
   3. Modify the literal meaning of words to avoid an absurd result.
   4. 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?
   1. Adler v George
   2. Fisher v Bell
   3. Pepper v Hart
   4. Re Sigsworth
3. The 'narrow approach' of the Golden Rule is applied when:
   1. The statute produces a morally objectionable result.
   2. A word in the statute has more than one possible meaning.
   3. The literal meaning leads to inconsistency with another statute.
   4. Parliament's intention is completely unclear.

Introduction

Following on from the Literal Rule, the Golden Rule represents a modification, allowing judges a degree of flexibility where the application of the literal meaning of statutory words would lead to an undesirable outcome. It acts as a bridge between strict literalism and more purposive approaches, acknowledging that Parliament is unlikely to have intended absurd, unjust, or contradictory results.

The Golden Rule permits a court to depart from the ordinary, literal meaning of words in a statute if that meaning would result in absurdity or inconsistency. It is applied cautiously, as courts are generally reluctant to deviate from the precise wording chosen by Parliament, respecting the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

Key Term: Golden Rule An approach to statutory interpretation that allows a judge to depart from a word's normal meaning (the literal rule) if applying the normal meaning would lead to an absurd or highly unreasonable result.

The rationale behind the Golden Rule is the presumption that Parliament does not intend to produce absurdities or outcomes that offend public policy or common sense. Therefore, where a literal interpretation yields such a result, the court may choose an alternative meaning that the words are capable of bearing, or in some cases, modify the words slightly to avoid the absurdity.

Applications of the Golden Rule

The Golden Rule is generally understood to have two applications: the narrow approach and the wide approach. The distinction lies in the nature of the problem presented by the statutory wording.

The Narrow Approach

The narrow approach is applied when a word or phrase within the statute is ambiguous and has more than one possible literal meaning. In such circumstances, the court may choose the meaning that avoids producing an odd or absurd result. This approach stays closer to the literal rule, merely selecting the most sensible interpretation from the available options.

Key Term: Narrow Approach (Golden Rule) Applied when a word has multiple literal meanings; the court selects the meaning that avoids absurdity, preferring the less absurd interpretation.

Worked Example 1.1

A local byelaw states: "It is prohibited to sleep in the train station overnight." John is found sleeping on a bench immediately outside the main entrance of the station. The purpose of the byelaw was to prevent vagrancy around the station precinct. Can John be found guilty under the literal meaning? How might the narrow Golden Rule apply?

Answer: Literally, John was not in the station, so under the Literal Rule, he might not be guilty. However, the word "in" could arguably be interpreted more broadly in context to mean "in or immediately around". If the literal meaning ("inside the building only") seems absurdly narrow given the byelaw's purpose (preventing vagrancy around the station), a court might use the narrow Golden Rule to select a slightly broader meaning of "in" to include the immediate vicinity, if the word can reasonably bear that meaning. However, this stretches the narrow approach; courts are often reluctant to extend the meaning significantly.

The Wide Approach

The wide approach is more radical. It is used when the words have only one clear literal meaning, but applying that meaning would lead to a result that is absurd, repugnant, or totally inconsistent with the rest of the statute. Here, the court modifies the meaning of the words to avoid the undesirable outcome, effectively changing the statute's language to achieve what Parliament is presumed to have intended.

Key Term: Wide Approach (Golden Rule) Applied when words have only one literal meaning, but that meaning produces a repugnant or absurd result; the court modifies the words to avoid this outcome.

Landmark Cases

Several key cases illustrate the application of the Golden Rule:

• Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7: The defendant was charged under the Official Secrets Act 1920 with obstructing a member of HM forces 'in the vicinity of' a prohibited place. He argued he was actually in the prohibited place, not merely in its vicinity. The court applied the Golden Rule (arguably the wide approach, modifying the meaning) to hold that 'in the vicinity of' should be read as 'in or in the vicinity of' to avoid the absurd result that it would be an offence to obstruct forces near the base, but not actually inside it.

• Re Sigsworth [1935] Ch 89: A son had murdered his mother. Under the Administration of Estates Act 1925, as her sole issue, he stood to inherit her entire estate upon her intestacy. The Act contained no exception for murderers inheriting from their victims. The court applied the Golden Rule (wide approach) to prevent the son from inheriting. It held that applying the literal rule would lead to a repugnant result, contrary to the public policy principle that a person should not benefit from their own crime. The court effectively read words into the Act to prevent this outcome.

Exam Warning

Be careful not to confuse the Golden Rule with the Mischief Rule or the Purposive Approach. While all allow departure from the literal meaning, the Golden Rule is triggered specifically by absurdity or repugnancy in the result of the literal meaning, whereas the Mischief Rule focuses on the specific defect the Act aimed to fix, and the Purposive Approach looks at the overall intention or purpose of Parliament in passing the Act.

Revision Tip

When analysing a scenario involving statutory interpretation, always start with the Literal Rule. Only consider the Golden Rule if the literal meaning genuinely leads to an absurd, inconsistent, or repugnant result. Clearly state whether you think the narrow or wide approach applies and justify your reasoning, referencing case law where appropriate.

Limitations of the Golden Rule

While useful, the Golden Rule is applied infrequently and cautiously. Critics point to several limitations:

• Subjectivity: What constitutes an 'absurd' or 'repugnant' result can be subjective, depending on the individual judge's view. This can lead to uncertainty.
• Infringement on Parliamentary Sovereignty: Modifying statutory language (especially under the wide approach) can be seen as judicial law-making, potentially encroaching on Parliament's legislative role.
• Lack of Clear Guidelines: There are no precise rules dictating when absurdity is significant enough to justify departing from the literal meaning.
• Limited Use: Judges are often reluctant to deviate from the literal meaning of statutes, preferring to leave amendments to Parliament.

Despite these limitations, the Golden Rule remains a recognised, albeit secondary, tool available to judges to ensure that statutory application avoids manifestly absurd outcomes and aligns more closely with justice and common sense.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The Golden Rule allows judges 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 more purposive interpretation methods.
• The narrow approach applies when a word has multiple meanings, allowing the court to choose the least absurd one.
• The wide approach applies when a single clear meaning leads to absurdity, allowing the court to modify the words.
• Key cases like Adler v George and Re Sigsworth illustrate its application.
• The rule is used cautiously due to concerns about subjectivity and infringing parliamentary sovereignty.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Golden Rule
• Narrow Approach (Golden Rule)
• Wide Approach (Golden Rule)