Golden Rule

Golden Rule

In the interpretation of statutes, the courts provide ³a broad and wider meaning´ to the words or phrases in question in order to t o achieve the object of legislature. The Golden Rule has nothing to do with the literal meaning meaning of the word ³gold´ ³gold´ It was defined in Grey v. Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 1 , "the ordinary sense of the words is to  be adhered to, unless it would lead to absurdity, when the ordinary sense may be modified to avoid the absurdity but no further." It only applies where the words are ambiguous. An interpretation that is not absurd is to be  preferred. v Allen ± s.57 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 made it an offence to µmarry¶ whilst the original s pouse was still alive (i.e. with no divorce).

 R

Defendant claimed he could not µlegally marry¶ because he was not divorced. The court decided that in the Act the word µmarry¶ means µto go through a ceremony of marriage¶. To accept otherwise would produce an absurd result. v. Muncaster 1980. In order to park in a certain way, permission was required from a  policeman in uniform; the defendant was a policeman in uniform. It was held that permission had to be requested (i.e. from someone else). eene  K eene

The golden rule may be used in 2 ways :  Narrow way : Applied where there is some ambiguity or absurdity in the words themselves. Broader way : To avoid a result that is obnoxious to principles of public policy, even where words have only one meaning. Re an Advocate [1964] MLJ 1

Facts : The respondent was an advocate on the roll of advocates for Sarawak. He visited Kuching in course of carrying on his practice and as a favour for his friend; he imported with him ladies¶ dresses and arranged advertisements and representatives. He also settled accounts and attended customs formalities in his own name and made use of his hotel room to facilitate the business Issue : whether his conduct fell within Section 12(g) of the Advocates Ordinance because if  he did he could be struck off the role of advocates or suspended from practice. Section 12(g) of Advocates Ordinance says t hat ³Any advocate may be suspended from practicing in Sarawak, or his name may be struck off  the role of advocates«by a dvocates«by order of a Judge for any of the following cases:

(g) if he does any act, which, if done in England, would render him liable to be disbarred or struck of the court, suspended from practicing, if a barrister or solicitor in England.´ Judgement : The word ³ or´ in the section could not be given a literal interpretation because to do so, would make all legal practitioners in countries where the two branches of the legal  profession were fused not liable to be struck of the roll, or suspended from practice. The court held that the word ³ or´ should be read as ³ and´  orders to avoid absurd consequences.