Really? Last time I checked, the judiciary only had a role to play if the law was ambiguous or incompetent - only then could they interpret it.
No, this is wrong. It has always been the job of the judges to interpret legislation: it is merely more difficult to do so when it is ambiguous or incompetent (whatever incompetent means in this context). Purposive interpretation has been going on for many a long year - see Pepper v. Hart, just for a start, interpretation in such a manner as most complies with international obligations is a principle established for some centuries, and this is particularly the case with EU legislation -and see also Factortame No 2-; the HRA specifically requires that legislation be interpreted in a manner that complies with the convention, and so on and so forth.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: Part 2.
Date: 2006-05-31 12:04 pm (UTC)No, this is wrong. It has always been the job of the judges to interpret legislation: it is merely more difficult to do so when it is ambiguous or incompetent (whatever incompetent means in this context). Purposive interpretation has been going on for many a long year - see Pepper v. Hart, just for a start, interpretation in such a manner as most complies with international obligations is a principle established for some centuries, and this is particularly the case with EU legislation -and see also Factortame No 2-; the HRA specifically requires that legislation be interpreted in a manner that complies with the convention, and so on and so forth.