levo

Statutory Interpretation

The Human Rights Act 1998, European Union law and interpretation

  • 3 things to know
  • Component 1

Overview

Declaration of incompatibility and teleological approach of the Court of Justice.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Your recallNot started
Numbers

What is a declaration of incompatibility?

Numbers

What did Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] decide?

Numbers

What did A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] decide?

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

  1. 1

    What duty does section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 impose?

    Model answer

    Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires courts to read legislation compatibly with Convention rights. The duty bites so far as it is possible to do so, and it covers Acts passed before 1998.

  2. 2

    How far can section 3 go, according to Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004]?

    Model answer

    Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] read the Rent Act 1977 so that a same sex partner counted as a spouse. The House of Lords said section 3 can depart from the ordinary meaning but not from a fundamental feature.

  3. 3

    What did R v A (No 2) [2001] decide?

    Model answer

    R v A (No 2) [2001] read down the restriction on evidence of a complainant's sexual history. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 must yield where a fair trial under Article 6 requires the evidence.

  4. 4

    What limit on section 3 did Re S (Children) [2002] state?

    Model answer

    Re S (Children) [2002] held that the Court of Appeal had gone beyond interpretation and into amendment of the Children Act 1989. The House of Lords said a court cannot use section 3 to introduce a whole new scheme.

  5. 5

    What is a declaration of incompatibility?

    Model answer

    A declaration of incompatibility is made under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The declaration states that a provision cannot be read compatibly with a Convention right. The provision nonetheless remains in force until Parliament changes it.

  6. 6

    What did Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] decide?

    Model answer

    Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] concerned the words male and female in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The House of Lords held that those words could not be read to cover a transgender woman's marriage. A declaration of incompatibility was made instead.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.

1Closed book
2Open book
3Closed book

The 3-step method, run for you

Answer cold, learn it, then prove it stuck. Levo tracks the jump between your first attempt and your last.

Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent

Cram a whole paper in one sitting

Sort every topic into what you know and what you do not, then drill only the weak ones.

The court sits in .
StrasbourgLondonParis

Blank Blitz makes facts automatic

Rapid timed gap-fills on the terms and numbers you need to recall without thinking.

AAn interim injunction restrains publication before trial.
BPublication cannot be undone.
CAn injunction may be the only effective remedy.

Build It gets the exam shape right

Assemble a full-mark answer from its marking points, in the order an examiner wants them.

A Public Bill changes the general law.
TrueFalse

Test It catches misconceptions

Spot the fault in a statement. The traps are the mistakes students actually make.

721941163128510

Brain Breaks between sessions

Short focus games to reset attention, so the next set lands better than the last.

Every question in Statutory Interpretation, on a schedule.

Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.

Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.