Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
golden rule - Coggle Diagram
golden rule
R v Allen (1872)
Offence: any MARRIED person who “SHALL MARRY” a SECOND person. It was seemingly obvious, BUT D argued that the statute should not be applied to him, since the words “SHALL MARRY” had TWO MEANINGS
COURT APPLIED NARROW VERSION: since the word "marry" had two meanings, court entitled to choose meaning which made most sense
One of those meanings was “to become LEGALLY married”. Since the second marriage - which was the offending action - could NOT have been LEGALLY EFFECTIVE (since D was NOT ALREADY MARRIED)
-
D, while ALREADY MARRIED, had MARRIED ANOTHER woman - contravened section 57 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - the offence of ‘BIGAMY’.
The prosecution, meanwhile, maintained that the meaning of “SHALL MARRY” OUGHT to be read as “to GO THROUGH the process of a WEDDING”.
court's definition is not hard to reason with - if the court had chosen D's version, it would have been impossible or anyone to commit the offence of bigamy and s57 of the OAPA1861 would have been entirely meaningless.
The golden rule is a MODIFICATION of the literal rule to AVOID an INTERPRETATION that is ABSURD. FIRST looks at the LITERAL MEANING of the words but the court is then ALLOWED TO AVOID an interpretation which would LEAD TO an ABSURD RESULT
NARROW APPROPACH: LORD REID in Jones v DPP (1962) when he said, “it is CARDINAL PRINCIPLE applicable to ALL KINDS OF STATUTES that you may not for any reason ATTACH to a STATUTORY PROVISION a MEANING which the words of that provision CANNOT REASONABLY BEAR.
WIDER APPROACH: words have ONLY ONE CLEAR MEANING, but the MEANING would LEAD to a REPUGNANT SITUATION. To AVOID this PROBLEM, the court can USE this rule to MODIFY THE MEANING.
If they are CAPABLE of MORE THAN ONE meaning, then you CAN CHOOSE between those meanings, but beyond this you cannot go.”. The court may ONLY choose between the possible meanings of a word or phrase, IF there is ONLY ONE meaning, then that must be taken.
Adler v George (1964)
It was argued that he was NOT GUILTY as the LITERAL WORDING of the Act DID NOT APPLY to anyone IN the prohibited place - ONLY TO THOSE who were SURROUNDING the place
The Official Secrets Act (1920) made it an OFFENCE to OBSTRUCT Her Majesty’s Forces ‘IN VICINITY’ of a PROHIBITED place.
->>D had caused an obstruction in the prohibited place!!!<<-
The Divisional Court found that D WAS GUILTY as it would be ABSURD if those CAUSING AN OBSTRUCTION OUTSIDE the prohibited place WERE GUILTY, but anyone INSIDE were NOT - the WOULD SHOULD BE read as being ‘IN OR IN VICINITY OF’ the prohibited place.
Maddox v Storer (1962)
D had a MINIBUS carrying 11 people. The Act made it an OFFENCE to drive at OVER 30mph in a vehicle ‘ADAPTED’ to MORE THAN SEVEN people.
the Road Traffic Act 1960
"Constructed or adapted for use" . . has been INTERPRETED over and over again by the courts to mean ‘ORIGINALLY CONTRUSCTED or ALTERED LATER later so as to make the vehicle FIT FOR PARTICULAR USE.
Re Sigsworth (1935)
The SON MURDERED his MOTHER. Mother had NOT MADE A WILL - her estate would have been INHERITED by her NEXT OF KIN according to the rules set out in the Administration of Justice Act 1925. Meant that the MURDERER SON would have INHERITED as her next of kin or ‘ISSUE’
There was NO AMBIGUITY in the words of the Act, but the court was NOT PREPARED TO LET MURDERER BENEFIT from his crime
It was held that the LITERAL RULE SHOULD NOT APPLY - the GOLDEN RULE would be used to PREVENT REPUGNANT SITUATION of the son inheriting