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 [ who ]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.
Answer
Lord Steyn
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 [ who ]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.
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 [ who ]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.
Answer
Lord Steyn
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it 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 st
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.