Statutory Interpretation after PRCBC and O v SSHD: Should we ‘Waste the Court’s Time a Great Deal Less in Looking at Background Material’?

Miranda Butler
{"title":"Statutory Interpretation after PRCBC and O v SSHD: Should we ‘Waste the Court’s Time a Great Deal Less in Looking at Background Material’?","authors":"Miranda Butler","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2022.2066890","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The issue of statutory interpretation, and the assistance to be gleaned in that process from pre-legislative and Parliamentary materials, has been on the minds of various Supreme Court justices in recent times. The recent judgment in Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens and O contains important warnings for practitioners wishing to rely on these materials but, furthermore, highlights what appears to be a sustained retreat from a more purposive, contextual style of interpretation into a more strictly literal approach. Such a trend would be constitutionally concerning, particularly at this time of legislative overhaul.","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Judicial Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2022.2066890","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract The issue of statutory interpretation, and the assistance to be gleaned in that process from pre-legislative and Parliamentary materials, has been on the minds of various Supreme Court justices in recent times. The recent judgment in Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens and O contains important warnings for practitioners wishing to rely on these materials but, furthermore, highlights what appears to be a sustained retreat from a more purposive, contextual style of interpretation into a more strictly literal approach. Such a trend would be constitutionally concerning, particularly at this time of legislative overhaul.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《中华人民共和国法》和《O诉SSHD案》之后的法律解释:我们是否应该“少浪费法院的时间去看背景材料”?
近年来,法律解释的问题,以及在立法前和议会材料中收集的帮助,一直是各最高法院法官的心头之物。最近在“儿童作为英国公民和O的注册项目”中的判决包含了对希望依赖这些材料的从业者的重要警告,但进一步强调了似乎从更具目的性的上下文风格的解释到更严格的字面方法的持续撤退。这种趋势在宪法上令人担忧,特别是在这个立法改革的时候。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Article 2 and Standards of Proof in Inquests: Unintelligible, Unclear, and Unpredictable? Of Codes and Common Law: The Approach to Apparent Bias in Local Government Committees Competing ‘Clear and Unambiguous’ Constructions: Darwall v Dartmoor National Park Authority [2023] EWCA Civ 927 and the Interpretation of Private Acts of Parliament The Curious Case of Boris’ Bishop: Did the First Catholic Prime Minister Fall Foul of s 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829? Information Law and Automated Governance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1