Despite formally agreeing with this creative interpretation of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s 41, Lord Hope felt that the general comments made by Lord Steyn on the scope of the HRA 1998, s 3 were constitutionally questionable. He accepted that the rule of construction laid down by the HRA 1998, s 3 was 'quite unlike any previous rule of statutory interpretation'. However, he felt that the rule was one 'of interpretation only' and did not give the judiciary the right to act as legislators, a role that should be reserved solely for Parliament.