1. From the statement, what do you understand? Critically give your own definition/ view on the statement 2. Briefly explain history of HRA and SI.
3. In your own view, what are the connections between HRA and SI Body
1. How HRA influence Judge interpret statutes a. tools- SI
b. Consequences - Judges make law
2. The effect of SI
a. s3 HRA
i. How it influence parliamentary supremacy ii. How SI violated SOP. 3. Where is the validity of HRA
a. s4 (declaration of incompability)
b. Parliamentary supremacy
4. According to validity of HRA, where is human rights, why citizen will seek ECtHR help instead of UK Court(HRA 1998). 5. Current policy (Updates)
a. Current rights( How expandable of rights given by HRA 1998) Conclusion
2. own view
The question statement suggests that the Human Rights has fundamentally changed the way judges interpret statutes. Though it admittedly has altered the way in which judges interpret statutes, it has not
This statement basically asserts that with regards to statutory interpretation, there has been changing approaches of interpretation influenced by the Human right Act 1998 (HRA). The impact of HRA on judicial interpretation, a deep discussion on HRA by reference of different sections which impose obligations and also give some power to judges in order to interpret statutes.
Statutory interpretation is the mechanism of interpreting and applying legislation. Parliament is the supreme body who makes laws but it is on courts to apply and enforce them according to the intention of parliament. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning, but in most cases, there is some ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute which needs to be resolved by the judge. In his task of statutory interpretation a judge is assisted by some so-called ‘rules’ and by some presumptions. In addition, there are available, within limits, some intrinsic and extrinsic aids to construction.
In 1978 Parliament passed the Interpretation Act to set out general rules for courts to interpret Acts. There are various rules and methods of interpretation followed by the UK judges to reach to the accurate meaning of that ambiguous word. All established rules are gradually developed by the UK judges according to their need.. The...
Human Rights Act 1998 and statutory interpretation
The House of Lords has had to consider the impact of section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 when interpreting statutes. Section 3 provides that : ‘So far as it is possible to do so, primary and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is com- patible with the Convention rights.’ The case of Attorney-General’s Reference No. 4 of 2002; Sheldrake v DPP (2004) involved two separate appeals which were considered together because they raised the same legal issue. They were concerned with whether the imposition of a legal burden on a defendant to prove that they had not committed an offence breached the presumption of innocence protected in Article 6 of the European Convention. The House of Lords concluded that the relevant legislation did not breach the European Convention and in reaching this conclusion it considered its role in interpreting statutes following the Human Rights Act 1998.
The situation before the Human Rights Act 1998:
The Convention was in force, so far as international law was concerned, from 1951. A considerable number of cases against the U.K. arose prior to the Human Rights Act 1998 and, in...