A retreat from Pepper v Hart? A reply to Lord Steyn

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 629-674

  Vogenauer, Stefan ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b BRASENOSE COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 31144455875     PISSN: 01436503     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqi027     Document Type: Review

References (433)

1. Allen Patrick Herbert, Bardot M.P.? And other Modern Misleading Cases (1964) at 167.
2. Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993] AC 593.
3. Lord Steyn, 'Pepper v Hart; A Re-examination' (2001) 21 OJLS 59.
4. Herbert, above n 1 at 167.
5. Millar v Taylor (1769) 4 Burr 2303 at 2332 (Willes J) (KB).
6. Re Dean of York (1841) 2 QB 1 at 34 (Lord Denman CJ) (QB);
7. Salkeld v Johnson (1848) 2 Exch 256 at 273 (Pollock CB) (Ex).
8. Eastman Photographic Materials Co Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks [1898] AC 571 at 575 (Earl of Halsbury LC).
9. Millar (n 5) at 2332.
10. Lord Reid, 'The Judge as Law-Maker' (1972-73) XII JSPTL 22 at 28.
11. R v West Riding of Yorkshire County Council [1906] 2 KB 676 at 716 (Farwell LJ) (CA);
12. Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264 at 349-50 (Lord Scarman).
13. Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 at 74 (Lord Reid).
14. Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 9 Ad & El 1 at 114 (Lord Denman CJ), at 209 (Patteson J) (QB);
15. Bradlaugh v Gossett (1884) 12 QBD 271 at 275 (Lord Coleridge CJ) (QBD).
16. For further references see Francis Bennion, Statutory Interpretation (4th edn, 2002) at 566-69.
17. Davis v Johnson (n 10) at 350 (Lord Scarman);
18. R v Secretary of State for Trade, ex p Anderson Strathclyde plc [1983] 2 All ER 233 at 239 (Dunn LJ) (DC).
19. Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd [1981] AC 251 at 279 (Lord Diplock).
20. Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591 at 629 (Lord Wilberforce).
21. The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, The Interpretation of Statutes, Law Com No 21 and Scot Law Com No 11 (1969) at 31-36.
22. Pickstone v Freemans plc [1989] AC 66 at 112 (Lord Keith), at 121-23 (Lord Templeman), at 126-27 (Lord Oliver).
23. Cf. Stoke-on-Trent City Council v B & Q plc [1991] Ch 48 at 66 (Hoffmann J).
24. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Brind [1991] 1 AC 696 at 749 (Lord Bridge), at 755 (Lord Ackner).
25. Pepper (n 2) at 619D (Lord Griffiths), at 620F (Lord Oliver), at 643C (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
26. Ibid at 623C-E, 629E (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
27. Ibid at 634C-636D.
28. Ibid at 634E and F (emphasis added), and at 635A.
29. Cf at 635B: 'why should not Parliament's true intention be enforced rather than thwarted?', at 637H: 'the basic need for the courts to give effect to the words enacted by Parliament in the sense that they were intended by Parliament to bear', and at 646B-C: 'Your Lordships are motivated by a desire to carry out the intentions of Parliament in enacting legislation.... The purpose is to give effect to, not thwart, the intentions of Parliament'.
30. Ibid at 636-40
31. the quotations are at 636E, 640B.
32. For the constitutional issues see also below, 6. B. (iii)(b).
33. Ibid at 640B-C. The classification as 'strict safeguards' is to be found at 634C.
34. Practice Direction (House of Lords: Supporting Documents) [1993] 1 WLR 303.
35. Bennion, above n 12 at 528 n 2.
36. Practice Direction (Hansard: Citation) [1995] 1 WLR 192 at 192-93.
37. This was repeated in the consolidating measures Practice Direction (Court of Appeal (Civil Division)) [1999] 1 WLR 1027 at 1059-60
38. Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Consolidation) [2002] 1 WLR 2870 at 2880, 2894.
39. See, e.g. In re Bishopsgate Investment Ltd [1993] Ch 452 at 481, 490 (Rose LJ), and also at 487 (Steyn LJ) (CA).
40. For further references cf. Bennion, above n 12 at 530.
41. Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498 at 507 (Lord Griffiths);
42. Chief Adjudication Officer v Foster [1993] AC 754 at 771-72 (Lord Bridge).
43. Melluish (Inspector of Taxes) v BMI (No 3) [1996] AC 454 at 481 (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
44. A similar problem had arisen in Denny v Yeldon [1995) 3 All ER 624 at 631, 632 (ChD) where Jacob J first allowed recourse, but then declined to attach importance to a ministerial statement on the intended ambit of a regulation-making power (which was unambiguous, and not in dispute) because it was only the meaning of the regulation made under the power which was doubtful.
45. This concern had already been voiced in Pepper (n 2) at 616B (Lord Mackay LC).
46. In re Bishopsgate (n 28) at 487 (Steyn LJ).
47. Foster (n 29) at 772 (Lord Bridge);
48. Melluish (n 30) at 481 (Lord Browne-Wilkinson): 'a valuable aid to construction'.
49. Holden & Co v Crown Prosecution Service (No 2) [1994] 1 AC 22 at 37 (Lord Bridge).
50. Cf the references in Bennion, above n 12 at 530-31, 579.
51. Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 2) [1996] 2 All ER 363 at 364-68 (Clarke J) (QBD).
52. K. Mullan, 'The impact of Pepper v Hart' in P. Carmichael and B. Dickson (eds), The House of Lords: Its Parliamentary and Judicial Role (1999) 213 at 238.
53. M. Andenas, 'Pulling the Language of Parliament to Pieces and Making Nonsense of It: Statutory Interpretation and travaux préparatoires' in M. Andenas and N. Jareborg (eds), Anglo-Swedish Studies in Law (1999) 220 at 232.
54. B.J. Davenport, 'Note: Perfection - But at What Cost?' (1993) 109 LQR 149 at 152-55.
55. J.H. Baker, 'Case and Comment: Statutory Interpretation and Parliamentary Intention' (1993) 52 CLJ 353 at 354-55.
56. D. Miers, 'Taxing Perks and Interpreting Statutes: Pepper v Hart' (1993) 56 MLR 695 at 708-9.
57. Baker, above n 40 at 354, 356, 357.
58. Miers, above n 41 at 708.
59. Cf. Dawn Oliver, 'Comment: Pepper v Hart: A suitable case for reference to Hansard?' [1993] PL 5, 13.
60. S.C. Styles, 'The Rule of Parliament: Statutory Interpretation after Pepper v Hart' (1994) 14 OJLS 151 at 154, 155, 157.
61. Ibid at 158.
62. Francis Bennion, Statutory Interpretation (3rd edn, 1997) at 492 (emphasis in the original).
63. The passage remains unaltered in the 4th edn, above n 12 at 547.
64. G. Marshall, 'Hansard and the Interpretation of Statutes' in D. Oliver and G. Drewry (eds), The Law in Parliament (1998) 139 at 151; 65 cf., also, at 144.
65. Marshall's criticism was reinforced by R.S. Summers, 'Interpreting Statutes in Great Britain and the United States: Should Courts Consider Materials of Legislative History?' in D. Butler, V. Bogdanor and R.S. Summers (eds), The Law, Politics, and the Constitution: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Marshall (1999) 222 at 227-54.
66. The relevant passages are at 154, 142, 150, 153, 140.
67. Lord Hoffmann, 'The Intolerable Wrestle with Words and Meanings' (1997) 114 SALJ 656 at 662-63, 668-69.
68. In a similar vein Lightman J, 'Civil Litigation in the 21st Century' (1998) CJQ 373 at 383.
69. Lord Steyn, 'Interpretation: Legal Texts and their Landscape' in B. Markesinis (ed.), The Clifford Chance Millenium Lectures: The Coming together of the Common Law and the Civil Law (2000), 79 at 87.
70. Lord Steyn, 'Does Legal Formalism Hold Sway in England?' (1996) 49 CLP 43 at 50.
71. Lord Millett, 'Construing Statutes' (1999) 20 SLR 107 at 110.
72. Lord Steyn, (2001) 21 OJLS 59 at 63-64 and 69-71.
73. Ibid at 64.
74. Ibid at 64, and already at 61.
75. Ibid at 64-66.
76. Ibid at 68, 70.
77. Ibid at 64, 68, 69, 70.
78. Ibid at 61, 68, 70
79. the quotation is at 61.
80. Ibid at 68, 70, 72.
81. Ibid at 67, 68, 70.
82. This idea had already been voiced by Lord Hoffmann, above n 49 at 669.
83. Ibid at 68.
84. Ibid at 70, 72.
85. Massey v Boulden [2002] EWCA Civ 1634 [65];
86. [2003] 1 WLR 1792 at 1809 (Sedley LJ). Cf also, at [18-19], 1797-98 (Simon Brown LJ).
87. The question had already been raised by Miers, above n 41 at 709-10
88. and by Lord Steyn, above n 53 at 67-68.
89. Ibid [55], at 1807 (Mantell LJ).
90. Cf., below, text following n 224.
91. Lewis v Eliades [2003] EWCA Civ 1758 [41]-[47];
92. [2004] 1 WLR 692 at 702-3 (Potter LJ);
93. Jacob LJ at [56], 705 reached the same conclusion without recourse to Hansard.
94. Oakley Inc v Animal Ltd [2005] 1 CMLR 1351 at 1361 [30] (Peter Prescott QC, sitting as Deputy High Court Judge in the Patents Court.
95. Re Blackspur Group plc (No 3) [2002] 2 BCLC 263 [20]-[28] (Patten J) (ChD);
96. Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2002] EWCA Civ 773 [62]-[64];
97. [2002] 1 WLR 2621 at 2639-40 (Lord Phillips MR for the court);
98. Oxfordshire County Council v Oxfordshire City Council [2004] EWHC 12 (Ch) [7]-[11], [45], [101];
99. [2004] Ch 253 at 264-65, 277, 293 (Lightman J).
100. Mirvahedy v Henley [2001] EWCA Civ 1749 [24]-[30];
101. [2002] QB 769 at 779-82 (Hale LJ).
102. On appeal, Lords Scott and Walker found the ministerial statements much less helpful, cf. below, n 85
103. A E Beckett & Sons v Midland Electricity plc [2001] 1 WLR 281 at 289-91 [30], [34], [38] (Lord Phillips MR for the court) (CA), cf. below, n 117.
104. Haringey London Borough Council v Marks & Spencer plc [2004] EWHC 1141 (Admin) [14]-[17];
105. [2005] 1 WLR 1742 at 1751-52 (Maurice Kay LJ).
106. Ibid at 1745-46 (District Judge Wiles, sitting at Haringey Magistrates' Court).
107. Croydon (Unique) Ltd v Wright [2001] Ch 318 at 332 (Sir Cristopher Staughton), against Pill LJ, dissenting, at 335 (CA);
108. R v Richmond London Borough Council, ex p Watson [2001] QB 370 at 387 (Buxton LJ) (CA);
109. Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) [2001] EWCA Civ 633 [35]-[37];
110. [2002] QB 74 at 94-95 (Morritt V-C): 'tend to confuse rather than to illuminate';
111. Massey (n 64) at [56], 1807-8 (Mantell LJ);
112. Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2003] EWCA Civ 103 [57], [107];
113. [2003] Ch 650 at 671, 682 (Simon Brown and Arden LJJ);
114. Glen v Korean Airlines Co Ltd [2003] EWHC 643 (QB) [30];
115. [2003] QB 1386 at 1394 (Simon J);
116. R (G) v Westminster City Council [2004] EWCA Civ 45 [36]-[37];
117. [2004] 1 WLR 1113 at 1125 (Lord Phillips MR for the court).
118. Aston Cantlow Parochial Church Council v Wallbank [2001] EWCA Civ 713 [29];
119. [2002] Ch 51 at 61 (Morritt V-C for the court);
120. Lowe v Guise [2002] EWCA Civ 197 [33];
121. [2002] QB 1369 at 1383 (Rix LJ);
122. Secretary of State for Defence v Spencer [2003] EWCA Civ 784 [22], [31];
123. [2003] 1 WLR 2701 at 2710 (Peter Gibson LJ);
124. R (Gibson) v Winchester Crown Court [2004] EWHC 361 (Admin) [27];
125. [2004] 1 WLR 1623 at 1635 (Lord Woolf CJ);
126. R (Ashbrook) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2004] EWHC 2387 (Admin) [16];
127. [2005] 1 WLR 1764 at 1770 (Collins J).
128. Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin) [76);
129. [2003] QB 151 at 192 (Laws LJ).
130. Cf., in a similar vein, City Logistics Ltd v Northamptonshire County Fire Officer [2001] EWCA Civ 1216 [32];
131. [2002] 1 WLR 1124 at 1134 (Kennedy LJ).
132. Ex p Watson (n 72) at 384 (Otton LJ), at 387 (Buxton LJ);
133. R (Gunn) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 891 [39];
134. [2001] 1 WLR 1634 at 1647 (Lord Phillips MR for the court);
135. Massey (n 64) at [17], [20], 1797-98 (Simon Brown LJ) (as opposed to Mantell LJ at [55], 1807 and, probably, Sedley LJ at [64]-[66], 1809);
136. Cornwall County Council v Baker [2003] EWHC 374 (Admin) [14], [20];
137. [2003] 1 WLR 1813 at 1818-19 (Toulson J);
138. In re OT Computers [2004] EWCA Civ 653 [39]-[40];
139. [2004] Ch 317 at 331-32 (Longmore LJ);
140. Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v Hooper [2005] EWHC 199 (Admin) [28];
141. [2005] 1 WLR 1995 at 2003 (Mitting J);
142. Connex South Eastern Ltd v MJ Building Services Group plc [2005] EWCA Civ 193 [36]-[38];
143. [2005] 2 All ER 870 at 879-80 (Dyson LJ).
144. R v Bowden [2001] QB 88 at 95-96 (Otton LJ for the court);
145. Bath and Wells Diocesan Board of Finance v Jenkinson [2002] EWHC 218 (Ch) [61]-[63], [2003] Ch 89 at 104-5 (Etherton J);
146. R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretaty of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (No 8) [2002] EWCA Civ 932 [58]-[59];
147. [2003] QB 381 at 406-7 (Lord Phillips for the court).
148. In R (Geologistics Ltd) v Financial Services Compensations Scheme [2003] EWCH 629 (Admin) [18];
149. [2003] 1 WLR 1696 at 1702 (Davis J) and in some earlier cases,
150. cf. Bennion, above n 12 at 528 n 3, this was seen as legitimate since counsel for both parties had agreed to look at Hansard;
151. cf also, South Central Trains Ltd v Rodway [2005] EWCA Civ 443 [28]-[31], [35]-[36];
152. 2005 Westlaw 871041 (Keene LJ).
153. RJT Consulting Engineers Ltd v DM Engineering (Northern Ireland) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 270 [5];
154. [2002] 1 WLR 2344 at 2348 (Ward LJ);
155. R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2004] EWHC 2911 (Admin) [297]-[298], [301];
156. [2005] 2 WLR 1401 at 1486-88 (Rix LJ and Forbes J).
157. Croydon (n 72) at 335 (Pill LJ, dissenting), cf. at 332 (Sir Cristopher Staughton).
158. The same approach had been taken in Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd (1998] Ch 304 at 330 (Ward LJ, dissenting) (CA) and had been severely disapproved in Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [2001] 1 AC 27 at 69 (Lord Hobhouse, dissenting), thus mirroring a well-known pre-Pepper rebuke of Lord Denning MR by Lord Diplock in Hadmor Productions Ltd v Hamilton [1983] 1 AC 191 at 204, 232-33.
159. Cream Holdings (n 72) at [41], [107], 666, 682 (Simon Brown and Arden LJJ).
160. Cf. Beckett (n 69) at [32]-[33], 289-91 (Lord Phillips MR for the court).
161. R (Confederation of Passenger Transport UK) v Humber Bridge Board [2003] EWCA Civ 842 [19]-[83];
162. [2004] QB 310 at 318-34 (Clarke LJ), in particular at [52], 326: Report of inspector to Secretary of State, decision letter of Secretary of State and explanatory notes of a statutory instrument as 'historical context' justifying the rectification/correction of an obvious drafting error;
163. R (on the application of Amicus - MSF Section) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2004] EWHC 860 (Admin) [93];
164. [2004] IRLR 430 at 443 (Richards J): Letter from the Secretary General of the General Synod and the Archbishops' council to the Clerk, addressed to the Parliamentary joint Committee on statutory instruments, admitting that this 'may be thought to be stretching the limits, but it helps to explain the difference in wording and the related issue in the case'.
165. Al-Ameri v Kensington and Chelsea Royal Borough Council [2004] UKHL 4 [45]-[46];
166. [2004] 2 AC 159 at 177 (Lord Hope);
167. Bakewell Management Ltd v Brandwood [2004] UKHL 14 [5];
168. [2004] 2 AC 519 at 532 (Lord Hope) where reference was made to the debates of an Act other than the one that was to be interpreted;
169. Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30 [46], [2004] 2 AC 557 at 575 (Lord Steyn).
170. R (Morgan Grenfell Ltd) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax [2002] UKHL 21 [34]-[35];
171. [2003] 1 AC 563 at 612-13 (Lord Hoffmann);
172. Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission [2002] UKHL 25 [26]-[27];
173. [2002] NI 236 at 244-45 (Lord Slynn);
174. R v Pope [2002] UKHL 26 [17];
175. [2002] 1 WLR 1966 at 1972-73 (Lord Hobhouse);
176. Aston Cantlow Parochial Church Council v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37 [37] and [162];
177. [2004] 1 AC 546 at 561-62 (Lord Hope), at 599 (Lord Rodger).
178. R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex p Spath Holme Ltd [2001] 2 AC 349 at 391-93 (Lord Bingham), at 398-99 (Lord Nicholls);
179. Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland [2002] UKHL 32 [40];
180. [2002] NI 390 at 405 (Lord Hoffmann);
181. R (Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 364 [24];
182. [2004] QB 36 at 60 (Lord Phillips MR).
183. P (A Minor) v National Association of School Masters [2003] UKHL 8 [37];
184. [2003] 2 AC 663 at 678 (Lord Hoffmann).
185. Robinson (n 83) at [17], 400 (Lord Bingham), at [39]-[40], 405 (Lord Hoffmann), at [62], 413 (Lord Hutton), at [65], 413 (Lord Hobhouse);
186. Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16 [102];
187. [2003] 2 AC 491 at 524 (Lord Scott, dissenting on another ground), cf. at [1591-[160], 539-40 (Lord Walker, dubitante);
188. McDonnell v Congregation of Christian Brothers Trustees [2003] UKHL 63 [20];
189. [2004] 1 AC 1101 at 1114 (Lord Bingham).
190. Spath Holme (n 83) at 392 (Lord Bingham).
191. Robinson (n 83) at [40], 405 (Lord Hoffmann), at [65], 413 (Lord Hobhouse), at [97], 420 (Lord Millett).
192. In a similar vein Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) [2003] UKHL 40 [140];
193. [2004] 1 AC 816 at 865 (Lord Hobhouse);
194. R (Quintavalle) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2005] UKHL 28 [34];
195. [2005] 2 WLR 1061 at 1071 (Lord Hoffmann).
196. Spath Holme (n 83) at [42]-[50], 366-69 (Stuart-Smith LJ) (CA).
197. Ibid at 391-93 (Lord Bingham), 398-99 (Lord Nicholls), 408 (Lord Hope), 413 (Lord Hutton).
198. Ibid at 400, 403 (Lord Cooke), on the one hand, and at 413-14 (Lord Hutton), on the other.
199. Ibid at 392 (Lord Bingham), 407-8 (Lord Hope), 413-14 (Lord Hutton).
200. For the dissents of Lords Nicholls and Lord Cooke see the text accompanying nn 111-112, below.
201. R v A (No 2) [2002] UKHL 25 [81];
202. [2002] 1 AC 45 at 79 (Lord Hope).
203. Ibid at [44], 68 (Lord Steyn) (emphasis in the original).
204. Ibid at [81], 79 (Lord Hope) (see n 92).
205. Robinson (n 83) at [40], 405 (Lord Hoffmann), at [65], 413 (Lord Hobhouse);
206. Lord Millett's concurrence with Lord Hoffmann at [97], 420 was restricted to the pragmatic reasons against reference to Hansard.
207. Lord Steyn 'The Intractable Problem of the Interpretation of Legal Texts' (2003) 25 Sydney LR 5 at 13-16, quotations at 15 and 16.
208. R (Westminster City Council) v National Asylum Support Service [2002] UKHL 38 [5]-[6];
209. [2002] 1 WLR 2956 at 2959 (Lord Steyn).
210. Wilson (n 87).
211. Another recent attempt to refer to Hansard not to resolve ambiguity or obscurity was launched in Glen (n 72), but Simon J, at [26]-[28], 1393-94, doubted that such recourse was permissible to demonstrate that the Act in question was in the nature of a bargain, contract, or 'trade-off' between landowners and air carriers.
212. It is a different question (which does not need to be discussed here) whether this is a useful distinction to draw or whether this issue is not, in all 'compatibility cases', part of the ordinary process of statutory interpretation, as seems to be indicated by Arden LJ in Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 727 [114];
213. [2005] Fam 1 at 102.
214. Wilson (n 72) at [35]-[37], 93-94 (Morritt V-C).
215. Wilson (n 87) at 823 (Sumption QC, arguendo) (emphasis added).
216. Ibid at [116], [118], 857 (Lord Hope).
217. Ibid at [142], 865 (Lord Hobhouse), Lord Rodger concurring at [178], 874-75.
218. Ibid at [60], [64], [67], 842, 843 (Lord Nicholls),
219. Lord Scott concurring at [173], 873.
220. R (Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment [2005] UKHL 15 [51];
221. [2005] 2 WLR 590 at 605 (Lord Nicholls).
222. Hansard, and other materials presented as departmental evidence, had already been relied upon for the purpose of assessing whether legislation is compatible with Convention rights, a couple of weeks before the House of Lords decision in Wilson, in R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2003] EWCA Civ 797 [54];
223. [2003] 3 All ER 577 at 599 (Laws LJ).
224. Cf. the recourse to parliamentary debates for the purpose of establishing whether a discriminatory measure is objectively justified (without reference to Wilson) in R (Hooper) v Secretary of Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 29 [22], [28], [30], [34], [38];
225. [2005] 1 WLR 1681 at 1690, 1692-94 (Lord Hoffmann).
226. Amicus (n 80) at [61]-[65], 439-40 (Richards J), thus reinforcing Pickstone (n 17).
227. In Evans (n 99) at [42]-[56], 85-89 Thorpe and Sedley LJJ (obiter) expressed strong doubts and regarded this as an issue 'which touches upon the separation of powers' (at [56], 89);
228. for a different view see Arden LJ at [114]-[115], 102-3.
229. Cf also, the discussion in Taylor v Lancashire County Council [2005] EWCA Civ 284 [53]-[60];
230. [2005] HRLR 17 (Lord Woolf CJ for the court).
231. I am thus unable to agree with A. Kavanagh, 'Pepper v Hart and Matters of Constitutional Principle' (2005) 121 LQR 98 at 115 that Pepper was 'tamed and muted' by Wilson.
232. Wilson (n 87) at [114], 856 (Lord Hope).
233. See also his remarks in Aston Cantlow Parochial Church Council (n 82) at [37], 561-62, decided one month after Wilson.
234. Ibid at [139]-[140], 864-5 (Lord Hobhouse), Lord Rodger concurring [178), 874-5.
235. Spath Holme (n 83) at 400-1, 402-4 (Lord Cooke).
236. Cf., also, Lord Cooke, 'The Road ahead for the Common Law' (2004) 53 ICLQ 273 at 282-84.
237. Ibid at 396D, 397E-398D, 399C (Lord Nicholls).
238. Cf. the text accompanying nn 203-208, below.
239. Wilson (n 87) at [56], [58], [60], 840-1 (Lord Nicholls),
240. Lord Scott concurring at [173], 873.
241. Wilson (n 87) at [59], 841 (Lord Nicholls). Lord Nicholls reinforced the points made in Wilson in his Chancery Bar Association Lecture on 16 March 2005, 'My Kingdom for a Horse: The Meaning of Words', second but last page of the manuscript distributed after the lecture. The lecture is to be published in the Law Quarterly Review.
242. Lord Steyn, 'Dynamic Interpretation Amidst an Orgy of Statutes' [2004] EHRLR 245 at 253.
243. Amicus (n 80) at [61]-[62], 439-40 (Richards J).
244. Beckett (n 69) at [30], [34], [38], [39], 289-91. I am grateful to Mr Guy Holborn, Librarian at Lincoln's Inn, for drawing my attention to this case after the Statute Law Society lecture.
245. Lord Phillips, 'The Interpretation of Contracts and Statutes' (2002) 68 Arbitration 17, 26.
246. Campbell v MGN Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1373 [124]-[126];
247. [2003] QB 633 at 675 (Lord Phillips MR), referring to Lord Hoffmann in Robinson (n 83) at [39]-[40], 405.
248. R (Q) (n 83) at 51 (Rabinder Singh QC, arguendo).
249. Ibid at [24], 60 (Lord Phillips MR).
250. Referring to Spath Holme, the estoppel argument was also advanced by counsel in R (Crown Prosecution Service) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2002] EWCA Civ 1661
251. [2003] QB 1222 at 1227, but the issue did not have to be decided.
252. R (Quintavalle) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2004] EWCA Civ 667
253. [2004] QB 168 at 176 (Pannick QC and Chamberlain, arguendo), emphasizing, however, that this was not an interpretation for which any of the parties contended.
254. Ibid at [35]-[36], [41], 186-87, 188
255. cf. [118], 201 (Mance LJ).
256. On appeal to the House of Lords the ministerial statements were held to be of no assistance, but no principled objection as to their admissibility was raised, Quintavalle (n 87) at [34], 1071 (Lord Hoffmann).
257. R (Jackson) v Attorney-General [2005] EWHC 94 (Admin) [29]-[30] (Maurice Kay LJ), [46] (Collins J) 2005 Westlaw 62254.
258. Spath Holme (above, n 89-91).
259. Jackson (n 124), at [29].
260. R (Jackson) v Attorney-General [2005] EWCA Civ 126 [73]-[75];
261. [2005] QB 579 at 601.
262. Ibid at [77], 602.
263. Ibid at [72], 601.
264. Cf., also, at [79], 602: 'Consideration of Hansard discloses beyond doubt the understanding of both the Lords and the Commons'.
265. Ibid at [79]-[87], 602-4.
266. Ibid at [72], [77], [88]-[97], 601, 602, 604-7.
267. Ibid at [3], [76], [77], 582, 602.
268. McDonnell (n 85) at [20], 1114 (Lord Bingham), but nevertheless looking at the material 'de bene esse'.
269. Hale LJ, in Mirvahedy (n 69) at [30], 782, had implicitly taken a different view: 'Had Oliver LJ had the benefit of the materials before us he could not have said, in Breeden's case 21 March 1985, that "Parliament could not have intended" such a result'.
270. A different position has also been cautiously advocated with respect to precedents postdating Pepper v Hart, cf. OT Computers (n 75) at [41], 332 (Longmore LJ).
271. The question had already been discussed by Davenport, above n 39 at 154 and
272. Styles, above n 44 at 156.
273. Stubbings (n 29) at 507A and E (Lord Griffiths). All the other Law Lords concurred. Stubbings was cited to the court in McDonnell, but in a different context.
274. McDonnell (n 85) at [29], 1116-17 (Lord Steyn).
275. Quintavalle (n 123).
276. In R (G) v Westminster City Council (n 72) at [36], 1125, Lord Phillips MR, speaking for the court, even explicitly suggested that Pepper should be given 'its wider application, as to which see the comments of Lord Steyn in McDonnell'.
277. Lords Bingham (in Spath Holme), Hobhouse (Robinson and Wilson), Hoffmann (Robinson), Hutton (Spath Holme) and Rodger (Wilson).
278. Lord Nicholls, however, has referred to it and has explicitly declined to give his view, cf n 114, above.
279. Lord Nicholls (in Spath Holme and Wilson, Lord Scott concurring), Lord Cooke (Spath Holme).
280. Lord Cooke, above n 111 at 282.
281. As opposed to the purpose of carrying out the proportionality test for assessing the compatibility of domestic legislation with European Convention rights, as in Wilson (n 87).
282. Cf for instance, his dicta on a construction updating old statutes in R v Ireland [1998] AC 147 at 158-9, and
283. on the 'principle of legality' in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 at 130.
284. Pepper (n 2) at 617E (Lord Griffiths).
285. Cf. at 617A (Lord Bridge), at 618A (Lord Griffiths), at 620C and 621B (Lord Oliver), at 623C, 642C, 634F, 644G (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
286. Ibid at 635A and D (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
287. Cf at 617G (Lord Griffiths).
288. What is the Proper Role of Legislative Intention in Judicial Interpretation? (1997) 19 SLR 235.
289. J. Raz, 'Intention in Interpretation' in R.P. George (ed.), The Autonomy of Law (1995) 249 at 280
290. J. Raz, 'Interpretation Without Retrieval' in A. Marmor (ed.), Law and Interpretation (1996) 155 at 161, 165.
291. Cf., also, the remarks on shared objectives or purposes, and the actions of groups in John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (1980) at 150-53.
292. Lord Steyn, above n 53 at 64.
293. Wilson (n 87) at [19], 832 (Lord Nicholls).
294. Cf R (Green) v Police Complaints Authority [2004] UKHL 6 [41];
295. [2004] 1 WLR 725 at 737 (Lord Rodger): The scheme of the legislation 'might show the state of Parliament's thinking'.
296. Spath Holme (n 83) at 388 (Lord Bingham): 'But the overriding aim of the court must always be to give effect to the intention of Parliament as expressed in the words used'.
297. Cf R v A (No 2) (n 92) at [44]-[45], 68C and H (Lord Steyn): 'In accordance with the will of Parliament as reflected in section 3';
298. R v Z (Attorney General for Northern Ireland's Reference) [2005] UKHL 35 [33];
299. [2005] 2 WLR 1286 at 1298 (Lord Woolf CJ): 'it is the court's function to ascertain the intention of Parliament as expressed in the legislation' (emphasis in the original).
300. R (Wooder) v Feggetter [2002] EWCA Civ 554 [48];
301. [2003] QB 219 at 231 (Sedley LJ), adding, 'which is why Pepper v Hart... was and still is so heavily contested'.
302. Lord Steyn, above n 50 at 85.
303. Lord Steyn, above n 96 at 15.
304. Lord Steyn, above n 115 at 248.
305. The basic question was framed as to whether the court should relax the 'rule that the courts must not look at the Parliamentary history of legislation or Hansard for the purpose of construing such legislation' (at 621D, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson, emphasis added) and whether one should refer 'to the reports of Parliamentary debates in order to determine the meaning of the words which Parliament has employed' (621C per Lord Oliver, emphasis added), and not to the ulterior purpose of accertaining an 'intention of Parliament'.
306. Lord Steyn, above n 53 at 61, 68, 70 (cf. n 59, above).
307. In a similar vein Baker, above n 40 at 356.
308. Lord Steyn, above n 53 at 68
309. above n 96 at 15
310. above n 115 at 252.
311. Cf. McDonnell (n 85) at [29], 1116 (Lord Steyn).
312. Lord Steyn, above n 115 at 252.
313. Cf above n 53 at 68
314. above n 96 at 15-16
315. McDonnell (n 85) at [29], 1117 (Lord Steyn).
316. Cf nn 57-59, 157, above.
317. Cf n 60, above.
318. Pepper (n 2) at 610F, 607B, 606C-F (Sir Nicholas Lyell AG, arguendo).
319. Ibid at 598E, 601F (Lester QC, arguendo).
320. As to Lord Wilberforce cf. n 15, above.
321. Ibid at 632D, 636E, 633A, 639G (quoted below, n 199), 634E (cf n 22, above).
322. Cf also, at 633H-634A.
323. Cf nn 42-48, 58, above.
324. This has recently been rehearsed by Kavanagh, above n 108 at 102-4, 114-15.
325. Felix Frankfurter, 'Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes', 47 Columbia LJ 527 at 541 (1947).
326. Maunsell v Olins [1975] AC 373 at 382 (Lord Reid).
327. I owe this analogy to Lord Rodger of Earlsferry who chaired the lecture of the Statute Law Society on which this article is based.
328. Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HLC 61 at 106 (Lord Wensleydale).
329. Lord Steyn, above n 51 at 50.
330. Cf the references provided by Bennion, above n 12 at 450-54.
331. Frankfurter, above n 164 at 543-44.
332. Law Commissions, above n 16 at 46 and 51, in ss 1(1) and (2) of the Draft Clauses.
333. Cf also, the careful distinction between weight and availability as an aid by Lord Scarman, 418 HL Official Report (5th series) col 68, 9 March 1981 upon (unsuccessfully) introducing a Bill based on the Law Commissions' recommendations.
334. Ibid at 27.
335. The distinction between admissibility and weight is also evinced in the first sentences of n 100 at 25, n 108 at 27,
336. and the second sentence of n 109 at 27.
337. Ibid at 30.
338. The same approach was suggested as to the new style explanatory statements proposed by the Commissions, at 42-43.
339. Ibid at 33, 34.
340. For continental and Scandinavian jurisdictions as well as the US, cf. R.S. Summers and M. Taruffo, 'Interpretation and Comparative Analysis' in D.N. MacCormick and R.S. Summers (eds), Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study (1991) 461 at 476-7.
341. As to Canada, cf., already in the 1950s, D.G. Kilgour, 'The Rule against the Use of Legislative History: "Canon of Construction or Counsel of Caution"?' (1952) 30 CBR 769 at 776
342. J.A. Corry, 'The Use of Legislative History in the Interpretation of Statutes' (1954) 32 CBR 624 at 635.
343. R v Montila [2004] UKHL 50 [33];
344. [2004] 1 WLR 3141 at 3150-51 (Lord Hope for the court).
345. Ibid at [32], 3150.
346. Ibid at [34]-[36], 3151.
347. Ibid at [37], 3152.
348. Lord Steyn, above n 96 at 8.
349. Lord Steyn, above n 115 at 247.
350. Cf ibid at 249, 250, and Lord Steyn, above n 96 at 7, 12-13.
351. Pepper (n 2) at 598E, 601G and H (Lester QC, arguendo).
352. Cf., also, at 597G.
353. Racal Communications Ltd v Pay Board [1974] 1 WLR 1149 at 1153 (Griffiths J) (ChD).
354. Pickstone (n 17) at 128C (Lord Oliver).
355. Ibid at 122G-H (Lord Templeman).
356. Ibid at 121H-122A (Lord Templeman).
357. Ibid at 112B (Lord Keith).
358. Pepper (n 2) at 618A (Lord Griffiths).
359. Ibid at 617C (Lord Bridge), at 618B (Lord Griffiths);
360. cf. at 620 c (Lord Oliver): 'where the difficulty can be resolved by a clear statement'.
361. Similar misunderstandings could arise from the formulations in Holden (n 34) at 37 (Lord Bridge);
362. Beckett (n 69) at [30], [34], [38], 289-291 (Lord Phillips MR).
363. Ibid at 642C (Lord Browne-Wilkinson), cf n 215, below.
364. Ibid at 635E (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
365. Ibid at 637D (Lord Browne-Wilkinson) (emphasis added).
366. Ibid at 635A (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
367. Cf Melluish (n 30) at 481E (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
368. Ibid at 617D and G (Lord Griffiths), at 634D (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
369. Cf Melluish (n 30) at 481H (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
370. Ibid at 639F (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
371. Ibid at 638A (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
372. Ibid at 637B (Lord Browne-Wilkinson), cf n 214, below.
373. Ibid at 635C (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
374. Ibid at 617F (Lord Griffiths) (emphasis added).
375. Ibid at 639G-640A (Lord Browne-Wilkinson) (emphasis added) (cf n 162, above).
376. Lord Cooke, above n 111 at 284.
377. Pepper (n 2) at 637A and B (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
378. Three Rivers (n 36) at 368 (Clarke J).
379. See text accompanying nn 112-113, above.
380. Spath Holme (n 83) at 397A-E, 399C (emphasis added).
381. Cf also, Wilson (n 87) at [56], 840: 'background material which may assist'.
382. Wilson (n 87) at [58], 841.
383. Spath Holme (n 83) at 399C-D (emphasis in the original);
384. reaffirmed in Wilson (n 87) at [58], 841, and also in the Chancery Bar Association Lecture, above n 114: 'the courts will in suitable cases note the stated intention of the promoter of the Bill. What he said may be a useful pointer to the purpose of a legislative provision. Pepper v Hart statements ... are only part of the legislative background. They do not, and cannot, control the meaning of an Act of Parliament. It is for the court to give such weight to these statements as the court considers appropriate'.
385. Cf also, Spath Holme (n 83) at 403H (Lord Cooke): 'there are cases in which the court can in the end derive real help from Hansard, even if it is not necessarily decisive help' (emphasis added).
386. In Wilson (n 87) at [64], 843, Lord Nicholls emphasized that ministers' views could not be equated with Parliament's views in compatibility cases either; but cf. Evans (n 99) at [53], 88 where, in a somewhat wider context, Thorpe and Sedley LJJ spoke of 'evidence - potentially conclusive evidence - of what [a minister] intended in making a statutory instrument of which the meaning is being debated in court'.
387. Contra Arden LJ at [114], 102 ('not suggested that the Secretary of State's views could bind the court's judgment') and at [115], 103.
388. Spath Holme (n 83) at 398C-D.
389. Ibid at 399E.
390. Cf. the references, above, n 19.
391. Pepper (n 2) at 603H-604B (Lester QC, arguendo) (emphasis in the original).
392. Ibid at 600E.
393. Ibid at 597H-598C (Lester QC, arguendo) (emphasis in the original).
394. Ibid at 616G (Lord Bridge) (emphasis added).
395. This is the only passage from Pepper referred to in support of the 'estoppel argument' by Lord Steyn in his Hart Lecture, above n 53 at 67.
396. Ibid at 642C-E (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
397. Ibid at 637A-C (Lord Browne-Wilkinson) (emphasis added);
398. cf n 201, above.
399. Ibid at 642C (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
400. Lord Steyn, above n 96 at 15 (cf above n 96 above).
401. Cf. nn 213-16, above.
402. Lord Steyn, above n 53 at 68.
403. Beckett (n 69).
404. ECJ, Case C-188/89, Foster v British Gas plc [1990] ECR I-3313 [20].
405. R v A (No 2) (n 92) at [44], 68 (Lord Steyn) (cf. n 93, above).
406. Massey (n 64).
407. For a similar situation see now Bakewell Management Ltd v Brandwood [2004] UKHL 14
408. [2004] 2 AC 519.
409. Pepper (n 2) at 614A.
410. Melluish (n 30) at 467E (Munby QC, arguendo).
411. Ibid at 469C (Aaronson QC, arguendo), and at 481-82 (Lord Browne-Wilkinson) (cf. n 30, above).
412. Lord Steyn, above n 53 at 67.
413. S 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, as amended in 1984.
414. Re Bolton, ex p Beane (1987) 162 CLR 514 at 518 (Mason CJ).
415. Cf n 17, above.
416. National Asylum Support Service (n 97) at [5]-[6], 2959 (Lord Steyn, obiter);
417. approved in National Association of School Masters (n 84) at [46], 680 (Lord Hoffmann);
418. applied in Humber Bridge Board (n 80) at [19], [38], [48]-[52], 318, 323, 325-26 (Clarke LJ);
419. reaffirmed in R (S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [2004] UKHL 39 [4];
420. [2004] 1 WLR 2196 at 2199 (Lord Steyn).
421. But see Callery v Gray (No 2) [2001] EWCA Civ 1246 [51]-[54];
422. [2001] 1 WLR 2142 at 2155 (Lord Phillips MR for the court), referring to the 'intention of the Lord Chancellor' as suggested by a note, from 'which we have derived considerable assistance', although he conceded that it could be 'questioned how much, if any, weight could be attached to it'.
423. Cf n 7, above.
424. Law Commissions, above n 16 at 30 n 124,
425. cf. at 49 n 177.
426. Pepper (n 2) at 635E (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
427. Cf his remarks in the lecture quoted, above n 115 at 246.
428. Cf the perceptive remarks of Viscount Dilhorne's dissent in Black-Clawson (n 15) at 622C-G, adding, incidentally: 'What weight is to be given to a committee's recommendation is another matter. That may depend on the particular circumstances'.
429. Lord Scarman, 418 HL Official Report (5th series) col 67, 9 March 1981.
430. McDonnell (n 85) at [29], 1116-17 (Lord Steyn) (see n 135, above).
431. Lord Steyn, above n 115 at 253.
432. Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 WLR 1234.
433. Spath Holme (n 83), cf. n 112, above.