Another case often cited in support of the Golden Rule is River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson, in which Justice Blackburn used these words: I am long and deeply impressed by the wisdom of the rule, which I believe is now generally accepted, at least in the courts of Westminster Hall, that in the interpretation of wills and even statutes and in all written instruments the grammatical and ordinary meaning of words must be observed. unless it leads to some absurdity or disgust or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical and ordinary meaning of the words may be modified to avoid such absurdity and inconsistency; but no further. [5] The rule was used in Adler v. George (1964) to avoid an absurd result. Under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920, it was a criminal offence to obstruct Her Majesty`s forces in the vicinity of a prohibited place. Mr. Frank Adler had been arrested for obstructing these forces in such a forbidden place (Markham Royal Air Force Station, Norfolk). He argued that he was not near a prohibited place because he was in fact in a prohibited place. The court applied the golden rule to extend the literal wording of the law to the act committed by the defendant.
If the literal rule had been applied, it would have led to absurdity, because someone protesting near the base would commit a crime, while someone protesting would not. The rule can be applied narrowly if the words themselves have some ambiguity or absurdity. [6] This rule is a modification of the literal rule. It states that if the literal rule creates an absurdity, the court should look for a different meaning of the words to avoid this absurd result. The rule was precisely defined by Lord Wensleydale in Grey v Pearson (1857) HL Case 61, who stated: “I think it is indisputable that what Lord Wensleydale called the Golden Rule is correct, except that we should take the whole law together and interpret everything together by giving words their ordinary meaning. unless applied in this way, they produce such a contradiction, absurdity or inconvenience that the Court convinces it that the intention could not have been to use them in their ordinary sense, which, though less appropriate, is that which the Court believes the words will carry. “(D)ie goldene Regel. is most often used to resolve ambiguities in the language of the law in favour of the meaning that best corresponds to the intention of the legislature resulting from the law as a whole. The Golden Rule in English law is one of the rules of legal construction traditionally applied by English courts. The rule may be used to avoid the consequences of a literal interpretation of the wording of a statute where such an interpretation would lead to manifest absurdity or to a result contrary to the principles of public policy. The rule can be applied in two different ways, each called narrower approach and broader approach. In a broader sense, the rule can be used to avoid a result contrary to the principles of public policy, even if prima facie words can have only one meaning.
“The rule further requires that words which, in a logical interpretation of the law, have only one meaning – language, that is, language which does not give rise to ambiguity – may nevertheless not acquire their natural meaning if the result is unjust or absurd or contrary to the clear object or intention of the law, as is clear from a reading of the whole and the character. In the absence of words to the contrary, the law assigns such laws. In the British case of Grey v. Pearson, 6 ER 60 (1857), quoted with agreement in Bilawchuk v Blomberg, 2000 ABQB 824, the golden rule has been defined as follows: I understand that this is a rule in the construction of methods, in the first case, the grammatical meaning of words must be followed. If it contradicts or is inconsistent with the stated purpose or contradicts the stated purpose of the law or contains negligence, retaliation or inconsistency, the grammatical meaning must be modified, broadened or shortened. That kind of discomfort, but no more. [3] The Golden Rule argument is an argument put forward by a lawyer in a jury trial to ask jurors to put themselves in the shoes of the victim or injured person and render the verdict they wish to receive if they are in that person`s position. For example, if the plaintiff has suffered severe scars in a personal injury case, the plaintiff`s lawyer could ask the jury to render the verdict he or she would like to receive if he or she had been disfigured in this manner. In general, the Golden Rule argument is condemned by judges and considered inappropriate in some states, as juries are expected to examine the facts of a case objectively and without personal bias. The court ruled that no one should profit from a crime and therefore applied the Golden Rule to prevent an undesirable outcome.
In U.S. v. Palma, while the Eighth Judicial District condemned the Golden Rule, noted that “a so-called Golden Rule argument, which asks jurors to put themselves in the shoes of one party, is generally condemned because it encourages the jury to deviate from neutrality and decide the case based on personal interests and prejudices. rather than evidence. The Golden Rule stems from the fundamental principle that courts must interpret the law “according to the intention of the person who made it”[1] and that “the words of the law express the intention of Parliament.” [2] Therefore, the entire text of the Act provides the context in which a particular provision must be interpreted to resolve textual difficulties. This was first stated by Justice Burton. in the Irish case Warburton v Loveland in 1828: Re Sigsworth (1935) concerned a case in which a son had murdered his mother. The mother had not drawn up a will and, under the Administration of Justice Act 1925, her estate would be inherited by her next of kin, her son. There was no ambiguity in the terms of the law, but the court was not willing to let the son who murdered his mother profit from his crime. It was decided that the literal rule should not apply and that the golden rule should be used to prevent the son`s repugnant situation.
Twenty-one years later, in 1857, Lord Wensleydale repeated the rule in Grey v. Pearson of the House of Lords, i.e.: Contrary to the concept of a Golden Ruile argument, a proposal is out of order to a jury (see Legal definition of the Golden Rule argument). The Golden Rule offers no clear way to test the existence or extent of an absurdity. This seems to depend on the outcome of each individual case. Therefore, while the Golden Rule has the advantage of avoiding absurdities, it has the disadvantage that there is no test to determine what an absurdity is. Answer: The “golden rule” is a rule in the Bible that says, “Treat others as you want them to do unto you” (Matthew 7:12), which is a great rule, but it is not allowed in civil or criminal cases.