The Golden rule is used if the literal rule gives an absurd result. Advantages of this rule is it prevents absurdity and injustice caused by the literal rule and it also helps the courts put into practice what Parliament really meant, a disadvantage of it noted by the Law Commission is, there is no clear meaning of what an ‘absurd result’ is. An example of this rule in practice is in the case of Adler v George (1964). The defendants were prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act 1920 which made it an offence to obstruct HM Forces ‘in the vicinity of’ a prohibited place. The defendants obstructed HM Forces actually IN the prohibited place. The strict use of the literal rule would have meant they were not guilty because they were ‘in’ rather than ‘in the vicinity of’. This was absurd, and the court used the golden rule to find them guilty.
The Mischief rule does a similar thing to the golden rule; the golden rule can only look inside the statue while the mischief rule can look out of the statue for other evidence. The rule was laid down in Heydon’s case (1584) which said a judge should, look to see what the gap in the law was which the Act of Parliament intended to put right, consider what remedy was intended to put that gap or ‘mischief right’ and interpret the law so as to remedy the ‘mischief’ to put An advantage of the Mischief rule is, it helps avoid absurdity and injustice, and promotes flexibility. It was described by the Law Commission in 1969 as a ‘rather satisfactory approach’ than the other two established rules. An example of this rule in use is, the case of Smith v Hughes (1960) In this case the Street Offences Act 1959 made it an offence for a prostitute to loiter or solicit in the street or public place for the purpose of prostitution.’ Prostitutes who were soliciting by attracting the attention of men in the street from the windows or balcony of a house were held to be guiltily of the offence even though the prostitutes were in a house and not ‘in the street or public place’. The judge said that the Act had been passed to protect the public from being solicited by prostitutes and as the public in the street were being solicited it did not matter that the prostitutes were in a house.
One fictitious rule in the statue states ‘If any dangerously out of control in a public place, the owner is guilty of an offence, or, if the animal while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence’. So with using the Literal Rule, there are no ways of avoiding this rule whatsoever every part of it has to be followed. If the golden rule was used they could be a way to avoid the penalty if the defendant was not doing exactly what the rule says.
For the purpose of section 1 a public place shall be regarded as dangerously out of control out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so. If the Literal rule was used there would be no way of escaping the statue but if the Golden rule was used there could be a way to avoid a charge.
For the purpose of section 1 a public place shall include any place which is not a public place but is a place where the animal is not permitted to be’. The maximum penalties laid down in the Act are a fine of up to £500 for the offence, and a fine of up to £1,000 and the destruction of the animal for the aggravated offence. The literal rule would make this you follow every part of this rule whereas in the golden rule there may be a way to escape the fine.
Under Section 1 it states ‘if any dog is dangerously out of control in a public place, the owner is guilty of an offence’ Sally’s dog was not ‘dangerously out of control’, so personally I do not think she should get convicted for the offence. Under the Literal rule she would get convicted because the law would never change no matter what happens whereas if the golden rule was used, I do not think she would get convicted because she get prosecuted because she got prosecuted for something which was not entirely true. Her dog was not dangerously out of control; the Golden rule would correct the literal rules mistake and leave her without a prosecution.
In my opinion, I do think a Hawk is an animal, so even though the Hawk did not physically hurt Marion, I think Tom should get convicted mainly for letting his Hawk out without any control of it. The Literal rule would get him convicted regardless if it is fair or not whereas the Golden rule may let him slip a prosecution because it is arguable that a Hawk is not an animal.
