Constitutional Interpretation

1
Constitutional Interpretation

• United Kingdom

2
BACKGROUND INFO

• No written constitution, i.e. no
  supra-legislative yardstick to measure the
  constitutionality of a statute
• Bill of Rights is the closest thing to a
  Constitution in U.K. Human Rights Act
• Unlimited sovereignty of
  Parliament in United Kingdom entrenching
  nothing

3
General Approach

• -         Originalism
• Traditionally More Literalism than Original
  Intent/ Purposive approach
• British courts have assumed that the will of
  Parliament is to be found solely in the words of
  the act concerned strict textualists

4
BUT SINCE PEPPER HART

•  
• The rule excluding reference to Parliamentary
  material as an aid to statutory construction
  relaxed where
• Legislation was ambigous/ obscure/ led to
  absurdity
• (b) The material relied upon consisted of one or
  more statements by a Minister or other promoter
  as was necessary to understand such statements
  and their effect
• (c) the statements relied upon were clear

5
RESTRICTED APPLICATION OF PEPPER v HART

• -         Steve Thoburn v. Sunderland City
  Council 2002 WL 45403 Neutral Citation Number
  2002 EWHC 195 Admin QBD
• -         I should add that in my judgment
  general words could not be supplemented, so as to
  effect a repeal or significant amendment to a
  constitutional statute, by reference to what was
  said in Parliament by the minister promoting the
  Bill pursuant to Pepper v Hart 1993 AC 593.

6
Continued

• A constitutional statute can only be repealed, or
  amended in a way which significantly affects its
  provisions touching fundamental rights or
  otherwise the relation between citizen and State,
  by unambiguous words on the face of the later
  statute.

7
Brief Note U.K. Human Rights Constitutional
Interpretation

• "As in the case of any other instrument, the
  court must begin its task of constitutional
  interpretation by carefully considering the
  language used in the Constitution.
• But . A generous and purposive interpretation is
  to be given to constitutional provisions
  protecting human rights.

8
A Summary
v.
9
U.S. v. U.K.

• grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may
  be modified, so as to avoid the absurdity and
  inconsistency, but no farther
• - Lord Wensleydale Grey v Pearson

• American judges generally have used a more
  flexible approach when deciding upon the relative
  priority of the rules
• - Justice Reeds opinion for the U.S. Supreme
  Court in United States v. American Trucking
  Association.

10
U.S. v. U.K.

• U.S. Constitution written more controversial
  provisions at much higher level of generality
• judges forced to deploy the rules of
  interpretation at correspondingly more general
  levels

• No written constitution, and
• Principle of Parliamentary Supremacy