Golden Rule of Evidence Act

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. It`s not just about human error. Environmental conditions play a major role in the contamination of evidence collected at crime scenes. Wind, sun, rain, snow and temperature can play a key role in destroying evidence at a crime scene. If there is blood at an outdoor crime scene and it rains, the blood can be washed away. This is one of the reasons why we take care to include the weather in our crime scene reconstructions. If a tree blocks the driver`s view, but now that the tree is gone, the judge and jury need to know that a big storm brought it down the next day. Did it snow the day after a shoot? Was there a lot of wind when a shooting took place, and did that strong wind affect the trajectory of the bullet? We don`t reconstruct our scenes as they are today; We reconstruct the scenes with what the region was like that day and at that hour.

I have long and been deeply impressed by the wisdom of the rule which I believe is now generally accepted, at least in the courts of Westminster Hall, that the literal and ordinary meaning of words must be observed in the interpretation of wills and even laws and all written instruments, unless this leads to some absurdity. or some disgust or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical and ordinary meaning of the words may be altered to avoid this absurdity and inconsistency, but no further. [5] The Golden Rule is probably the best-known ethical code of all time. It has been used by the Romans, Chinese, Greeks and adopted by every major religion imaginable. And at first glance, it seems like a good code of ethics to abide by as a society. However, the Golden Rule is not only flawed and selfish, but can also justify immoral actions. The main reason why the Golden Rule is flawed is that the moral standard and criteria are not based on the wishes and preferences of others, and do not even focus exclusively on what our tastes and desires are. The Golden Rule involves the basic assumption that others want to be treated the way you want to be treated. And with that, we are inevitably led to moral relativism, whatever your moral standards and desires, that`s what`s morally good for others. [31] These are not rules in the ordinary sense of the word, as they all indicate different solutions to the same problem.

Nor is there any indication in the so-called rules or elsewhere as to what is to be applied in a particular situation. Any of them can be applied, but it is not mandatory. In the following, it is criticized that Zander talks about the Golden Rule because he is silent about how the court should proceed if it finds an unacceptable absurdity:[33] There are three golden rules that, if followed faithfully, ensure that you understand this part of the law of evidence. The first rule is that you should leave your books and go to court. The second is that once you are there, you should watch and listen carefully. The third rule is that you should repeat this process frequently. If you get used to it, the rather dry topics covered in these chapters will make a lot more sense and, therefore, will be easier to remember. Watching films about American trials, whether fictional or not, is no substitute for going to court yourself. American and English procedures and terminology differ, and it is intrusive to confuse the two.

Don`t copy the mistakes of journalists who use phrases like “take the witness stand” instead of “go to the witness stand.” They don`t care, but it will matter to you one day if you follow their lead and look stupid in court when you show up for a client. 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 can be applied narrowly if the words themselves have some ambiguity or absurdity. [6] Each nation has its own legal system, the purpose of which is to grant justice to all. The Court seeks to interpret the law in such a way as to guarantee justice for every citizen for all. In order to do justice to all, the concept of canons of interpretation has been explained. These are the rules that are developed to determine the real intention of the legislator. In India, there are several good examples where the Supreme Court or Supreme Courts have applied the gilded construction of laws. Some confusion can be felt when it seems that even for the literal rule, this rule is named.