3 Judges Rules to Live by

A long long time ago, as part of learning consumer laws. I was taught that everyone has rules to follow. Even judges in the courts. To most people this is a surprise, but when interpreting the law the rules are there to guide judges in making decisions. These are known as judge’s rules and there are quite a few they have to consider when considering a case.

These rules help the judges interpret the law as set by government. In essence they try to explain how the law came about and sometimes delve a bit deeper to try and understand the true meaning behind what the law makers where trying to get at.

Three of the main rules have always stuck in my mind and I've used them sometimes in life to try and help me get to a clearer understanding of what people say and perhaps what they truly mean.

The first of the three rules is the literal rule. In essence what has the person said and take that literally. As in legal fashion all the rules have case law (or what I call stories that allow an explanation of it in use). So for the literal rule say a man applies to vote using another name. Legally this isn't allowed as the law says you can't use another person's name to vote twice. The judge in this case used the literal rule and said the man didn't do anything wrong as the person was dead and as he didn't exist he wasn't a person. Thus he can't actually commit a crime. Seems absurd but bear with it. How many times have we got things wrong by hearing or taking things to literally?

The second rule is the mischief rule. Here the judges look at what the mischief or what was wrong in the first place that needed stopping. I.e. what where they trying (the law makers) to say. So the case or story in relating to this rule relates to ladies of the night. The law says it is illegal for such ladies to ply their trade on the streets. However in this case the ladies where on balconies or tapping on windows to attract their clients therefore technically not on the streets. The judges decided that the actual mischief was stopping these woman from harassing people therefore the mischief was still happening regardless of it actually being on the street. I.e. finding the reason for the rule.

The third rule is the golden rule. This rule is used by the courts where if the literal meaning was used then it would be absurd or manifestly unjust. So the story behind explaining this rule relates to bigamy. The law stated that you can’t marry someone who is already married. So in essence it’s not possible to marry someone already married. That obviously though technically correct is absurd and the judge in this case said what was actually meant was that it is illegal to go through another marriage ceremony when you are already married. In this case the judge’s interpretation is based on the golden truth or the real reason behind it.

All very well, but how does this help in real life. Well for me an understanding of these basic rules means that when talking or listening to someone we often get caught up in conversations which end up “ah but you said this or that”. Often we may have actually said it but it's not what we are actually trying to say. A particular problem if you also have dyslexia and your brain works a lot faster than your mouth which loses meaning in interpretation or unexplained.  

For me when I hear or am in conversation my first rule is stop taking it literally. Using the other rules mischief or golden to try and work out the truth behind what the person is trying to say. What is the person trying to do by telling me this? What is the truth behind the words? Inherently I think people aren’t bad or trying to hurt you, but a lot can get lost in our perception of the translation.

Here's an example from my past. I was having a discussion with one of my managers about actually managing people. In the conversation I actually said “you can't manage me”. That literally came out as you’re not good enough to manage me. Which was not what I meant and in hindsight really rude. (If my ex manger is reading this big apologies). What If buy using these rules to aid the interpretation in this case what mischief is trying to be prevented or golden meaning behind what I was really trying to say? In this case you don't need to manage me. I can manage myself, I need mentoring and support not management please. But that's not what I said and the literal meaning was taken. This caused a substantial misunderstanding and had negative effect, with the manager for some time.

It's difficult for others to understand, but let's reverse this to say when someone says something to me. Say someone says you let me down.  Using the literal rule would make me feel terrible I actually did something that made someone else feel bad. However when the true facts come to light using the other rules i.e. mischief or golden, and explaining or questioning my motives i.e. did I intend some mischief by not being there? Or the truth of it did I genuinely not support them? Leads me to explain to the other person that there was no inherent meaning or negative reason behind not being there and it was circumstances. All parties have a better understanding of the truth of the matter. 

So next time when you say or someone else says something don’t jump to conclusions perhaps you can use reasoning and practises in law to help you come to a better more clear understanding of conversations. Most of the time this will leave all parties with less feelings of guilt and as they say case dismissed.