Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Aids to interpretation, In general for Hansard: Can be referred to in…

- - - - Statutes do not change the common law (unless they explicitly say so)
        
        R v Leach (1912):
        
        Facts: At common law, spouses could not be compelled to give evidence against each other. Parliament enacted the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 which regulated the compelling of witnesses to give evidence in criminal proceedings but did not address the position of spouses
        
        Held: The Act did not change common law position. Spouses remain un-compellable as witnesses against each other. The Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.80 explicitly removed this rule in the context of crimes involving violence
      - Statutes do not bind the Monarch
        
        Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council (1990):
        
        Facts: Contractors working for the Ministry of Defence closed off part of a public road in Scotland to upgrade their fencing around a submarine base. The local authority tried to prevent them from doing it on the basis that permission was not obtained.
        
        Held: As the local planning law did not expressly say that it binds the Crown, the presumption remains that it did not and so was unenforceable on contractors working on behalf of the Crown
      - Legislation is prospective, not retrospective, in application
        
        Wainwright v Home Office (2003):
        
        No retrospective application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to pre-1998 actions
  - - - Turkington v Times Newspapers (2000):
        
        Facts: Claimant challenged the defence's reliance on the Law of Libel (Amendment) Act 1888 on the basis that there's no such thing as a 'press conference' when the Act was passed and therefore defence provided in the Act could not apply to this case.
        
        Held: HoL rejected this and affirmed the general rule that statutes must are to be regarded as 'always speaking' unless provide otherwise
- - - - Pepper v Hart:
        
        Concerns a specific situation where there is ambiguity in the law on interpretations of a provision in income tax law. The Minister proposed a Bill regarding how this provision should be interpreted, which is recorded in Hansard
        
        Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No.2) (1996):
        
        Extended the principles by Pepper v Hart to situations where legislations are not ambiguous, but instead argued the reference to Hansard will reveal the general purpose of legislation
        
        This means that certain duties imposed by the statute on the defendant which were not obvious from the statute itself
        HoL allowed reference to Hansard
      - R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Speth Holme Ltd (2001):
        
        HoL attempted to limit the scope of the rule in Pepper v Hart
        
        HoL held that Hansard would not be used to interpret intention of Parliament in general terms, unless the Minister responsible made an explicit statement on that matter
        
        Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (2003): - HoL further emphasised that Hansard will not be referred in order to discover reasons why Parliament thought it necessary to enact the legislation
        
        Held that Hansard will only be used to discover the meaning of specific words used in legislation, if and when it is ambiguous
        
        Only statements made by the Minister or another sponsor of legislation should be referred to, and not statements by others in the House