Statutory Interpretation and Human Rights Act Essay

1820 Words8 Pages
The Human Rights Act has revolutionised the way in which judges interpret statutes The statement basically is regards with statutory interpretation, the impact of Human rights act on interpretation and the changing approaches of interpretation influenced by Human right Act 1998 (HRA).The essay will deal with the widespread view that the human Rights Act 1998(HRA) has changed the traditional role of parliamentary intention in statutory interpretation and the way in which judges interpret statutes. It begins by outlining what actually statutory interpretation is and the various ways in which legislative intent has featured in traditional statutory interpretation. This will be followed by an examination of the interpretive principles developed by the senior judiciary under the HRA case law, focusing on the extent to which they seem to depart from traditional principles and whether is it really true that the Human Rights act has radically changed or as the title suggest "revolutionised" the way in which judges interpret statutes or is it just a mirage. Judges interpret statutes as a way of creating law. This occurs when the language in the statute is ambiguous and the judge has to use the rules of interpretation (i.e. literal, golden, mischief and purposive) to determine the intent of the parliament when it enacted the particular legislation. The human rights act 1998(HRA) as well, has increased the law-making ability of the judiciary. The interpretative provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have had a major impact on judicial interpretative practices. Under Section 3 of the HRA1998 the courts are required to interpret primary and subordinate legislation in a way which is compatible with the convention rights, 'so far as it is possible to do so'. However the effect of s3 (2), is that the incompatibility of a piece of primary legislation with the HRA does not mean
Open Document