The Golden Rule is a modification of the literal rule and states that the literal rule is the 1st rule that judges should apply but if the outcome will result in an absurd result, then the golden rule should be used.
Because of this many advantages and disadvantages take place:
The first advantage is that it respects the exact words of Parliament except in limited situations, where there is a problem using the literal rule, and therefore the golden rule provides an 'escape route' for many judges, such as in the case of Re Sigworth. Next, the literal rule is dependent on words that are clearly clarified and have one meaning. The golden rule allows judges to accept that words have different meanings and choose an appropriate outcome, such of which the Parliament intended to write. This is clearly portrayed in the case of Adler V George where Adler gained access to a RAF station (a prohibited place within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act 1920) and was actually within its boundaries. He obstructed a member of Her Majesty's forces engaged in security duty in relation to the station ‘in the vicinity of a prohibited place’ He argued that, as he was actually in the prohibited place, he could not be said to be "in the vicinity" of the prohibited place, and therefore the defendant was guilty of the offence because "in the vicinity of" should be interpreted to mean on/in or near the prohibited place. Another advantage is the fact that the golden rule means that judges don't always have to depend on Parliament for rectifying errors, like Bigamy- (still based on section 57 of the Offence Against the Persons Act- 1861, because the problem was generally sorted out in the case Rv Allen. Lastly, the golden rule actually stops absurd outcomes and injustices, again such as that in the case of Rv Allen- (the Bigamy offence).
Along with its advantages the golden rule also has disadvantages. Firstly, it involves and allows judges not just to apply and enforce the law, which...