The article on pp. 16–19 explained the literal rule of statutory interpretation. You will remember that this is, or certainly was, used to give the words in an Act their natural dictionary meaning. As we saw in cases such as Berriman and Cheeseman the use of this rule can lead to unfair results, as in Berriman, or absurd results, as in Cheeseman.
In this article we will be considering the golden rule. When a judge uses this rule, he or she will start by interpreting the word or words by using the literal rule. However, if by using this rule the result is an absurdity, or the result is ambiguous, the judge can use the golden rule to give a slightly different meaning to the words, which removes the absurdity or ambiguity. Therefore the judge is doing something more than merely looking at the dictionary — he is giving his own thoughts to the best meaning of the words. At its simplest, this is how the golden rule works.
Your organisation does not have access to this article.
Sign up today to give your students the edge they need to achieve their best grades with subject expertise
Subscribe
