A Level Law Practice Exam

The narrow version of the golden rule allows a judge to avoid an unjust or absurd outcome by interpreting a statute in a way that is consistent with the intention of Parliament while still adhering closely to the literal wording of the law. In the context of the given choices, the case of Alder v George is a prominent example of this principle. In Alder v George, the court had to determine the meaning of the phrase "in the vicinity of" in relation to an offense that prohibited certain actions in prescribed areas. The defendant argued that he was not guilty because the wording of the law seemed to imply that he could not be prosecuted for actions taken inside a prohibited area. The court applied the narrow version of the golden rule by interpreting the term to include "in the vicinity," thereby allowing for a conviction despite the seemingly awkward application of the literal wording. This interpretation aligned with the legislative intent to prevent prohibited actions within a defined area, demonstrating how the narrow version of the golden rule can effectively rectify potential injustice in the application of the law. This application distinguishes Alder v George from the other cases listed, which may not exemplify the narrow application of the golden rule in the same way or may illustrate different principles of statutory interpretation.