In my opinion, it would be unwise to consider the three significant rules to be

100% consistent, however in spite of their minor imperfections; the rules provide a
coherent and continuous framework for courts to work from when interpreting statute.
However, as far as I concerned the rule that is seen to achieve the legislator’s
intention in passing a statute is golden rule . Golden rule is a rule where a judge
modify the literal meaning in order to avoid the absurdity .The aim is to produce a
reasonable and sensible result.

In Golden Rule,there are several advantages that laid upons.They

are,firstly,errors in drafting can be corrected immediately.For example in the case of
R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367.The defendant was charged with the offence of
bigamy under s.57 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The statute states
'whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the
former husband or wife is guilty of an offence'.
The court applied the golden rule and held that the word 'marry' should be interpreted
as 'to go through a marriage ceremony'. The defendant's conviction was upheld.
Under a literal interpretation of this section the offence would be impossible to
commit since civil law will not recognise a second marriage any attempt to marry in
such circumstances would not be recognised as a valid marriage.

It often gives a more just result. sometimes when using literal rule in making
decision,the judge seems to be a bit departed from the supposed-to-be decision
because the judge have to accept the mere meaning of the word,and this may lead to
unjust or absurd or mischievious result and sometimes lead one party to suffer
because of bad decision making.In golden rule,the judge have the supremacy with
his discretion to choose which meaning is suitable to use and whish is not as they
can depart from the actual meaning of the word if the found that the other meaning
may lead to absurdity. Second reason why golden rule is better is decisions are
generally more reasonable.it is not uncommon for occassional mistakes to slip
through and confronted with such situation.For instance ,occasional mistakes do
arise in relation to the use of words “and” and “or” . Such situation did arise in Re An
Advocate 1964 involving interpretation of section 12(g) of the Advocates Ordinance
.the court ruled that the word “or” should be read as “and” in order to avoid an absurd
consequences because to allow a literal interpretation of “or” would make all legal
practitioners in countries where the profession is fused liable to be struck off the
roll,or suspended from practice.

Golden rule also brings common sense to the law.golden rule is surely said to
bring law into its senses.why?because while interpreting statute with the aid of
golden rule,the judge may take into the consideration of the meaning of the statute is
logic and rational according to the circumstances. where a word can have more than
one meaning, the judge can choose the preferred meaning; if the word only has one
meaning, but applying this would lead to a bad decision, the judge can apply a
completely different meaning. This is emphasized in the case of Re Sigsworth where
the judge applied golden rule.Does it make sense to let the murderer of his own
mother to inherit her wealth after killing her?this is where the golden rule became the
saviour.

Comparing golden rule with mischief rule,usually in interpreting statute using

golden rule,the time consumed is lesser because the judge only have to search for
the meaning of certain words,and if the meaning double up,the judges only have to
choose which one is the best so that the can make the best decision in order to
produce sensed decision.While in mischief rule, the application of this rule gives the
judge more discretion than the literal and the golden rule as it allows him to
effectively decide on Parliament's intent. It can be argued that this undermines
Parliament's supremacy and is undemocratic as it takes law-making decisions away
from the legislature. The rule was illustrated in the case of Smith v Hughes , where
under the Street Offences Act 1959, it was a crime for prostitutes to "loiter or solicit in
the street for the purposes of prostitution". The defendants were calling to men in the
street from balconies and tapping on windows. They claimed they were not guilty as
they were not in the "street." The judge applied the mischief rule to come to the
conclusion that they were guilty as the intention of the Act was to cover the mischief
of harassment from prostitutes.Plus,in mischief rule,it depends solely on the judges
discretion to decide,thus,it may be a tendency for the judges to make decision based
on their natural senses not based on legal senses.Because we cant assumed that
the discretion given is same of all the time.it may be varied,depends on the
judges,the parties and the case involved.so,the decision somehow is unpredictable. It
gives much power to the judges over a decision and indirectly involved the judges in
the law making.Judges can bring their own views, sense of morality and prejudices to
a case.

To compare golden rule and purposive approach,purposive approach in

contrast looks beyond the words of the statute.It refers to the true purpose of the
Act. This operates even if Parliament has failed to incorporate the intention which the
judge believes that the section possesses.This is also lead to the supremacy of the
discretion of the judges in making decision as when the strict interpretation of a
statute gives rise to an absurd and unjust situation, the judges can and should use
their good sense to remedy it-by reading words in, if necessary-so as to do what
Parliament would have done.

In conclusion,golden rule is better used in achieving the legislator intention

while passing the statutes.