Human Rights Act 1998 Section 3: A new dimension to statutory interpretation?

Statute Law Review

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 130-138

  Samuels, Alec ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 52249089638     PISSN: 01443593     EISSN: 14643863     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/slr/hmn009     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Sheldrake v. DPP (2004) UKHL 43;
2. (2005) 1 AC 264, para 28.
3. Ghaidan v. Godin Mendoza (2004) UKHL 30;
4. (2004) 2 AC 557;
5. (2004) 3 All ER 411.
6. Beaulane Properties v. Palmer (2005) EWHC 817 (Ch), (2006) ch. 79, paras 208-209.
7. R v. Holding (2005) EWCA Crim 3185,
8. (2006) 1 WLR 1040, paras 46-47.
9. (2004) UKHL 43;
10. (2005) 1 AC 264, paras 45-54.
11. For the compatibility of control orders see Secretary of State for the Home Department v. MB (2006) EWCA Civ 1140,
12. (2006) 1 WLR 839.
13. R v. Lambert (2001) UKHL 37;
14. (2002) 2 AC 545;
15. (2002) 1 All ER 2.
16. Where the statutory provision in question is clearly compatible with international obligations no question of section 3 need arise R (Hammond) v. Secretary of State for Home Department (2005) UKHL 69,
17. (2006) 1 AC 603.
18. Similarly in civil matters AJC Capital Partners v. Republic of Kazakhatan (2005) EWHC 2239 (Comm), (2006) 1 WLR 1420, paras 78--84.
19. R v. Johnstone (2003) UKHL 28;
20. (2003) 1 WLR 1736;
21. (2003) 3 All ER 884.
22. (2007) EWCA Crim 528,
23. (2007) 1 WLR 1500.
24. (2006) EWHC 2683 (Admin),
25. (2007) 1 WLR 1670.
26. R v. A (no 2) (2001) UKHL 25;
27. (2002) 1 AC 45;
28. (2001) 3 All ER 1, paras 44-46.
29. (Rushbridger) v. Attorney-General (2003) UKHL 38;
30. (2004) 1 AC 357;
31. (2003) 3 All ER 784.
32. R (Rushbridger) v. JRC (2005) UKHL 30
33. (2005) 1 WLR 1718 para 17.
34. (2006) EWCA Civ 878, (2006) Fam 83, paras 50-60 and 90-104.
35. S (Minors) (2002) UKHL 10;
36. (2002) 2 AC 291. In the event, there were no breaches of the Convention.
37. M v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2004) EWCA Civ 1343;
38. (2006) QB 380.
39. Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza (2004) UKHL 30;
40. (2004) 2 AC 557;
41. (2004) 3 All ER 411.
42. Goodwin v. UK (2002) 35 EHRR 447.
43. R (Hooper) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2005) UKHL 29;
44. (2005) 1 WLR 1681.
45. R (Wilkinson) v. IRC (2005) UKHL 30;
46. (2005) 1 WLR 1718.
47. (2007) UKHL 52, [2008] 1 AC 719.
48. Smith v. Scott 2007 SLT 137, Registration Appeal Court (SC).
49. Following Hirst v. UK (2006) 42 EHRR 41.
50. Representation of the People Act 1983 s 3. Dickson v. UK 15 November 2006 ECHR - prisoner entitled to provide artificial insemination for wife at liberty.
51. Kay v. Lambeth (2006) UKHL 10, (2006) 2 AC 465.
52. R (Wilkinson) v. IRC (2005) UKHL 30;
53. (2005) 1 WLR 1718, para 18.
54. Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza (2004) UKHL 30;
55. (2004) 2 AC 557;
56. (2004) 3 All ER 411, paras 26-33.
57. Wilson v. First County Trust (no 2) (2003) UKHL 40;
58. (2004) 1 AC 816, paras 14-23, 96-102, 128-129, 155, 211-217.
59. See also J A Pile (Oxford) v. Graham (2002) UKHL 30,
60. (2003) 1 AC 419.
61. See also Beaulane Properties v. Palmer (2005) EWHC 817 (ch), (2006) ch. 79.
62. See also R v. Lambert (2000) UKHT 37;
63. (2002) AC 545.
64. A v. Houre [2008] UKHL 6, the House of Lord held that time was against the claimant only from the moment he knew of a cause of action and could reasonably have been expected to commence proceedings.
65. JA Pye (Oxford) v. UK, application 44302/02, 15 November 2005, noted (2006) JFLb;
66. (2002) UKHL 30,
67. (2003) 1 AC 419,
68. (2002) 3 All EX ECHR, 865.
69. Beaulane Properties v. Palmer (2005) EWHC 817 (Ch),
70. (2006) Ch. 79.
71. R (Hurst) v. London North District Coroner (2007) UKHL 13,
72. (2007) 2 AC 189 paras 42-47 Lord Brown.
73. R (Anderson) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002) UKHL 46;
74. (2003) 1 AC 837, paras 30-31 and 59. A proper judicial system for fixing the minimum term before release is now in force Crim (Sentences) Act 1997 s 28, as amended.
75. A Secretary of State decision in line with judicial recommendation would not be contrary to the Convention, at least in substance R v. Lichniak, R v. Pyrah 2002 UKHL 47;
76. (2003) 1 AC 903.