Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.


  • Presentation
  • Question
  • Answer

Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
The approach to be taken under the HRA towards the interpretation of legislation has been controversial, as can be seen in R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) (No 2) [2001] 2 WLR 1546. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s 41 was designed to restrict the circumstances in which evidence and questioning about a complainant's prior sexual history in trials concerning sexual offences could be permitted. The issue was whether this new provision prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6.

The House of Lords held that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s 41 was incompatible with the right to a fair trial. 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:

'[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 [...] … In accordance with the will of Parliament as reflected in section 3 it will sometimes be necessary to adopt an interpretation which linguistically may appear strained. The techniques to be used will not only involve the reading down of express language in a statute but also the implication of provisions. A declaration of incompatibility is a measure of last resort. It must be avoided unless it is plainly impossible to do so. If a clear limitation on Convention rights is stated in terms, such an impossibility will arise.'

Answer
strive to find a possible interpretation compatible with Convention rights

Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
The approach to be taken under the HRA towards the interpretation of legislation has been controversial, as can be seen in R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) (No 2) [2001] 2 WLR 1546. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s 41 was designed to restrict the circumstances in which evidence and questioning about a complainant's prior sexual history in trials concerning sexual offences could be permitted. The issue was whether this new provision prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6.

The House of Lords held that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s 41 was incompatible with the right to a fair trial. 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:

'[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 [...] … In accordance with the will of Parliament as reflected in section 3 it will sometimes be necessary to adopt an interpretation which linguistically may appear strained. The techniques to be used will not only involve the reading down of express language in a statute but also the implication of provisions. A declaration of incompatibility is a measure of last resort. It must be avoided unless it is plainly impossible to do so. If a clear limitation on Convention rights is stated in terms, such an impossibility will arise.'

Answer
?

Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
The approach to be taken under the HRA towards the interpretation of legislation has been controversial, as can be seen in R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) (No 2) [2001] 2 WLR 1546. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s 41 was designed to restrict the circumstances in which evidence and questioning about a complainant's prior sexual history in trials concerning sexual offences could be permitted. The issue was whether this new provision prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6.

The House of Lords held that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s 41 was incompatible with the right to a fair trial. 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:

'[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 [...] … In accordance with the will of Parliament as reflected in section 3 it will sometimes be necessary to adopt an interpretation which linguistically may appear strained. The techniques to be used will not only involve the reading down of express language in a statute but also the implication of provisions. A declaration of incompatibility is a measure of last resort. It must be avoided unless it is plainly impossible to do so. If a clear limitation on Convention rights is stated in terms, such an impossibility will arise.'

Answer
strive to find a possible interpretation compatible with Convention rights
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
re 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 <span>strive to find a possible interpretation compatible with Convention rights … In accordance with the will of Parliament as reflected in section 3 it will sometimes be necessary to adopt an interpretation which linguistically may appear strained. The techniques t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised 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.