Describe the Golden Rule used in statutory Interpretation?

The Golden Rule is used to interpret ambiguous meanings arising within Statutes. There are two forms of the Golden rule; narrow and wide. The Narrow approach as defined in Jones v DPP (1962) by Lord Reid states "If they are capable of more than one meaning, then you can choose between those meanings". This occurred within R v Allen (1872) where the ambiguous definition of "shall marry" within the Offences against the Person Act 1861 for Bigamy was interpreted using the narrow approach of the golden rule. "Shall marry" was interpreted to mean to go through with a marriage ceremony rather than legally marry because choosing legally marry would bring an absurd result; you cannot legally marry twice. Therefore, Allen was found guilty of Bigamy by going through a marriage ceremony when interpreting the Statute using the narrow approach. Whereas, the wider approach allows for judges to interpret the statute not with choosing between ambiguous meanings but by choosing an entirely different meaning altogether to avoid absurd results. In Re Sigsworth (1935) the Administration of Justice Act 1925 was interpreted using the wider approach to not allow a son who murdered his own mother to inherit where no will was established as this would bring the absurd result for rewarding homicide. Therefore the wider approach was used to determine that the Act included inheritance being allowed where it would not be a benefit to another crime by adding that interpretation rather than following the literal meaning of the words expressed in the Act. To conclude, the golden rule in statutory interpretation can be done through two approaches, narrow and wider, as well as protect from absurd results which could arise using the literal interpretation of Statutes.