Eduqas A-Level Law A150QS
Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent
The Civil Courts and Civil Process
The Criminal Process
Legal Personnel
Access to Justice and Funding
Contract: Rules and Theory of Contract LawContract
Contract: Essential Requirements and FormationContract
Contract: Express and Implied TermsContract
Contract: Misrepresentation and Economic DuressContract
Contract: Discharge of ContractContract
Contract: RemediesContract
Tort: Rules and Theory of Tort LawTort
Tort: NegligenceTort
Tort: Occupiers' LiabilityTort
Tort: Torts Connected to LandTort
Tort: Vicarious LiabilityTort
Tort: Defences and RemediesTort
Criminal Law: Rules and TheoryCriminal
Criminal Law: General Elements of LiabilityCriminal
Criminal Law: Offences Against the PersonCriminal
Criminal Law: Property OffencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Capacity DefencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Necessity Defences and Preliminary OffencesCriminal
Human Rights: Rules and TheoryHuman rights
Human Rights: Protection of Rights and Freedoms in the UKHuman rights
Human Rights: Convention ProvisionsHuman rights
Human Rights: Restrictions on Convention RightsHuman rights
Human Rights: EnforcementHuman rights
Human Rights: ReformHuman rights
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.
What did Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] decide?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.