The golden rule in statutory interpretation, which allows courts to depart from the literal meaning of words when it leads to an absurd or unreasonable outcome, has both advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages
Flexibility and avoidance of absurdity: One of the main advantages of the golden rule is that it provides flexibility in statutory interpretation. It allows courts to depart from the literal meaning of words when applying the strict literal rule would lead to absurd or unreasonable results. By doing so, the golden rule helps to ensure that the law is interpreted in a way that is fair, just, and sensible, avoiding unintended and unjust outcomes.
Alignment with legislative intent: The golden rule helps courts to align their interpretation with the intention of the legislature. When the literal rule produces results that clearly go against the overall purpose and intent of the legislation, the golden rule allows the court to modify the interpretation to achieve a more reasonable and just outcome. This promotes the notion that the court's role is to give effect to the legislature's intentions.
Justice and fairness: By permitting departures from the strict literal meaning of words, the golden rule can uphold justice and fairness in the application of the law. It allows for a more contextual interpretation that takes into account the broader purpose and policy considerations behind the legislation. This can result in a more equitable outcome, especially when the literal interpretation would lead to unfair or discriminatory results.
Disadvantages
Potential for judicial subjectivity: One of the disadvantages of the golden rule is that it introduces an element of judicial subjectivity into the interpretation process. The determination of what constitutes an absurd or unreasonable result can vary from one judge to another, potentially leading to inconsistent outcomes. The application of the golden rule may depend on the personal values, perspectives, and opinions of individual judges, which can raise concerns about the predictability and uniformity of the law.
Potential for judicial overreach: Critics argue that the golden rule can give judges too much discretion and power in interpreting legislation. They contend that departing from the literal meaning of words should be limited to exceptional cases and that the court's role should primarily be to apply the law as enacted by the legislature. Concerns arise that the golden rule may allow judges to substitute their own policy preferences or opinions for the intent of the legislature, potentially undermining the separation of powers.
Uncertainty and lack of clarity: The golden rule can create uncertainty and lack of clarity in the law. As it involves departing from the ordinary and literal meaning of words, it can make it challenging for individuals and legal practitioners to predict or determine the outcome of a legal dispute. This can result in ambiguity and confusion, affecting legal certainty and the ability of individuals to comply with the law.
It is important for courts to exercise caution and use the golden rule judiciously, striking a balance between promoting justice, fairness, and aligning with legislative intent while respecting the boundaries of their interpretive role.
Study with us to smash your AL/AS Law exam now:
