[T]he interpretative obligation under section 3 of the 1998 Act is a strong one. It applies even if there is no ambiguity in the language in the sense of the language being capable of two different meanings
Answer
R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) (No 2) [2001] 2 WLR 1546
Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
[T]he interpretative obligation under section 3 of the 1998 Act is a strong one. It applies even if there is no ambiguity in the language in the sense of the language being capable of two different meanings
Answer
?
Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
[T]he interpretative obligation under section 3 of the 1998 Act is a strong one. It applies even if there is no ambiguity in the language in the sense of the language being capable of two different meanings
Answer
R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) (No 2) [2001] 2 WLR 1546
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it ial. As a consequence of this finding, their Lordships went on to consider their obligations under the HRA 1998, s 3. Lord Steyn, in particular, advocated a 'wide' approach to interpretation under the HRA 1998, s 3. He reasoned:
'<span>[T]he interpretative obligation under section 3 of the 1998 Act is a strong one. It applies even if there is no ambiguity in the language in the sense of the language being capable of two different meanings … Parliament specifically rejected the legislative model of requiring a reasonable interpretation. Section 3 places a duty on the court to strive to find a possible interpretation compat
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.