Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION II (L6) - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Prostitutes in a house sought to attract the attention of men passing in the street by beckoning from balconies and tapping on windows
      - Under s.1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959, it was 'an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution'
      - Defendant argued that a balcony was not 'in a street' or 'public place', nor was tapping on a glass window from within a house
      - The defendants were convicted by magistrates and appealed to the Divisional Courts of the Queen Bench Division
      - The problem was that the Act did not make clear where the prostitute had to be when the solicitation took place
      - Lord Parker referred to the mischief of the 1959 Act, which was well known, as a measure 'intended to clean up the streets' and to enable people to walk without being solicited by prostitutes. Against this background, it mattered not that the prostitutes were indoors or on balconies; the solicitation was projected into the street and was aimed at a person walking in the street and fell within s.1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959. The defendant's conviction was upheld.
  - - - 2) What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide
      - 3) What remedy the parliament hath resolved and appointed to cute the disease of the commonwealth
      - 4) The true reason of the remedy
      - 1) What was the common law before the making of the Act
- - - - Z and others were charged under s.1 1 (1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 with belonging to a proscribed organisation, the Real Irish Republican Army (the 'Real IRA')
      - By s.3(1) of the Act, 'an organisation is proscribed if (a) it is listed in Sch,2 or (B) it operates under the same name as an organisation listed in that schedule'
      - Schedule 2 included the Irish Republican Army (the IRA) but did not include the 'Real IRA'
      - The question for the House of Lords was simply whether the 'Real IRA ' was a proscribed organisation
      - It was argued on behalf of z that the words used by Parliament had not made clear an intention to proscribe the 'Real IRA'
      - The organisation was not included in Sch.2, nor did the 'Real IRA' fall within s.3(1)
      - It had different name, separate membership, and different aims from the IRA
      - Z's argument was based upon a literal interpretation of the Terrorism Act 2000, supported by a presumption of legislative intent
      - 'The interpretation of a statute is far from academic exercise, it is directed to a particular statute, enacted at a particular time, to address (almost invariable) a particular problem or mischief. As was said in R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health (2003) 2 AC 687, 695 para 8: 'The courts task, within the permissible bounds of interpretation, is to give effect to Parliament's purpose. So, the controversial provisions should be read in the context of the statute as a whole, and the statute as a whole should be read in the historical context of the situation which led to its enactment.'
- - - - Decision makers acting under statutory powers should exercise their discretion reasonably
      - Criminal offence creating statutes construed as requiring men's rea
  - - - Presumption against the retrospective operation of a statute
      - Presumption against outstanding the jurisdiction of the courts
      - Presumption against Parliament being in breach of international law