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.



Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
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 [...]' and did not give the judiciary the right to act as legislators, a role that should be reserved solely for Parliament.
Answer
interpretation only

Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
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 [...]' and did not give the judiciary the right to act as legislators, a role that should be reserved solely for Parliament.
Answer
?

Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
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 [...]' and did not give the judiciary the right to act as legislators, a role that should be reserved solely for Parliament.
Answer
interpretation only
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
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 <span>interpretation only' and did not give the judiciary the right to act as legislators, a role that should be reserved solely for Parliament.<span><body><html>

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.