Today we looked at our final topic within Statutory Interpretation – Finding Parliament’s Intention.
A court will attempt to uncover Parliament’s intentions by using a variety of aids – these are either ‘intrinsic’ or ‘extrinsic’.
An intrinsic aid is one that is from inside the Act of Parliament itself which make it easier to interpret. These are:
1. Long title
2. Short title
3. Preamble
4. Section headings and marginal notes
An extrinsic aid is one that is from outside the Act of Parliament itself which makes it easier to interpret. The uncontroversial ones are:
1. Previous Acts on the same topic
2. Historical setting
3. Earlier case law
4. Dictionaries at the time
There used to be very strict rules on other aids – they could not be used. Attitudes have changed though. These are:
1. Hansard
This is the official report of what was said in Parliament when the Act was debated. Until 1992 a court was not allowed to look at what was said in Parliament. Pepper v Hart (1993)– H of L relaxed the rule and accepted that Hansard can be used in a limited way where is ambiguity, absurdity or obscure;and there is a clear statement introducing the legislation. Wider use is permitted where the court is considering an Act that introduced an international convention or European Directive into English Law; see Three Rivers District Council and others v Bank of England (No 2) (1996). There are problems though – Since 1992 Hansard has been referred to in a number of cases – but has to added up to 25% to the cost of the bill; and Hansard has not always proven useful as the Minister’s statements have often been confusing and misleading.
2. Reports of Law Reform bodies
It used to be the case that courts could not look at Law Commission Reports but this was changed in the Black Clawson Case 1975. It is now accepted that a report could be looked at to discover the mischief which the legislation based on the report is trying to remedy.
3. International Conventions which have been implemented in English Law
Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd 1980 H of L decided that the original convention should be considered as it was possible the original meaning might be lost.
4. Explanatory Notes
Since 1998 explanatory notes have been produced alongside bills. These usually explain the background to any proposed law, summarise its main points and where a point is complicated give a worked example. These notes are updated as the bill goes through Parliament.
5. European Law
Where the law to be interpreted is based on Law the courts must interpret it in light of the wording and purpose of European Law. This is because of the Treaty of Rome.
“take all appropriate measures…to ensure fulfilment of the obligations”. See Marleasing Case 1992 and Diocese of Hallam Trustee v Connaughton 1996.
6. European Convention on Human Rights
s3 – HRA 1998 – legislation must be read in such a way as to be compatible with HRA. It applies to any case where rights are involved. See R v Offen 2001;
We finished off our look at Statutory Interpretation by examining R v Registrar-General ex parte Smith 1990. This case neatly illistrates the basic problem that it is up to each individual judge to decide whether they follow the Literal or Purposive Approach to interpretation.
Cover Work is set for Thursday 2 Novemeber 2006
Additional Reading – you should find all of these resources on the Internet.
Look at various Acts of Parliament – can you identify the intrinsic aids features?
Arbitration Act 2006 – this is quite different from other acts as it sets out its aims within the Act itself.
Look at extract from Hansard – what sort of things are discussed in Parliament during debates?
- Black Clawson Case 1975
- Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd 1980
- Marleasing Case 1992
- Diocese of Hallam Trustee v Connaughton 1996.
- R v Offen 2001
- Pepper v Hart 1993
- Three Rivers District Council and others v Bank of England (No 2) 1996
- R v Registrar-General ex parte Smith 1990
