An interpretation of the rule of law that allows a judge to deviate from the usual meaning of a word in order to avoid an inappropriate, illogical or absurd result The court ruled that no one should benefit 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 on the basis of personal interests and prejudices. rather than evidence.” 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 the landmark case, R v Allen of 1872, the defendant was charged with bigamy under section 57 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which criminalized marrying while the spouse was still alive and not divorced. The court ruled that the word “marry” in this context could not mean “legally marry” because it could never apply to someone who was already married to someone else. To understand the provision, the word must be interpreted as meaning “to go through a second marriage.”  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 was applied to this effect in Re Sigsworth in 1935 as part of the Administration of Estates Act 1925. A man had murdered his mother and then committed suicide. According to the clear provisions of Article 46, since she had died without an inheritance, her murderer had essentially inherited all of her property, which would then have passed on to her descendants. This was disputed by other members of the woman`s family. The court applied the golden rule to rule in favour of family members and to prevent the son`s descendants from profiting from his crime on grounds of public order.  The rule applied in this particular case was subsequently enshrined in the Forfeiture Act 1982 and the Deceased Persons Estates Act 2011 (Forfeiture Rule and Right of Succession). The Golden Rule stems from the fundamental principle that courts must interpret the law “according to the intention of the person who made it” and that “the words of the law express the intention of Parliament.”  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 mentioned in 1828 by Justice Burton.
In the Irish case of Warburton v. Loveland: It is very useful to stick to the ordinary meaning of the words used and to the grammatical construction when interpreting a statute, unless it would be contrary to the intention of Parliament to draw inspiration from the law itself. or leads to obvious absurdity or disgust, in which case the language may be changed or altered to avoid such inconveniences, but no more.  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.  The policy case on the broad approach is Adler v. George of 1964, in which the defendant was charged with obstructing a military guard in the performance of his duties. To succeed, the prosecution had to prove that the act took place “in the vicinity” of a military installation. The respondent argued that “in the vicinity” meant “outside, near or in the vicinity” of the facility inside the facility, namely an RAF base. The court ruled that such an interpretation would lead to an absurd result, interpreting “in the vicinity” to include a person who is already on the premises.
  This was confirmed by the House of Lords in 1832.  Cite Warburton in the English case of Becke v Smith of 1836, Parke J.