Abstract

This essay gives more detailed content to the widespread view that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) has changed the traditional role of parliamentary intention in statutory interpretation. It begins by outlining the various ways in which legislative intent has featured in traditional (pre-HRA) statutory interpretation. This is followed by an examination of the interpretive principles developed by the senior judiciary under the HRA case-law, focusing on the extent to which they seem to depart from traditional principles. It is argued that although the traditional role of parliamentary intention is partly preserved post-HRA, the interpretive obligation under s 3(1) HRA nonetheless shifts the interpretive focus away from what Parliament originally intended in enacting the legislation under HRA scrutiny, towards fulfilling the overriding goal of achieving compatibility with Convention rights. The final sections of the essay attempt to provide an account of what is involved in this shift