1. Constitutional Interpretation

2. BACKGROUND INFO No written constitution, i.e. no supra- legislative yardstick to measure the constitutionality of a statute Bill of Rights is the closest thing to a Constitution in U.K.; Human Rights Act Unlimited sovereignty of Parliament in United Kingdom entrenching nothing

3. General Approach - Originalism: Traditionally More Literalism than Original Intent/ Purposive approach: British courts have assumed that the will of Parliament is to be found solely in the words of the act concerned = ‘strict textualists’

4. BUT … SINCE PEPPER & HART The rule excluding reference to Parliamentary material as an aid to statutory construction relaxed where: (a)Legislation was ambigous/ obscure/ led to absurdity (b) The material relied upon consisted of one or more statements by a Minister or other promoter … as was necessary to understand such statements and their effect (c) the statements relied upon were clear

5. RESTRICTED APPLICATION OF PEPPER v HART - Steve Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council 2002 WL 45403 Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 195 Admin QBD : - I should add that in my judgment general words could not be supplemented, so as to effect a repeal or significant amendment to a constitutional statute, by reference to what was said in Parliament by the minister promoting the Bill pursuant to Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593

6. Continued … A constitutional statute can only be repealed, or amended in a way which significantly affects its provisions touching fundamental rights or otherwise the relation between citizen and State, by unambiguous words on the face of the later statute.

7. Brief Note: U.K. Human Rights & Constitutional Interpretation "As in the case of any other instrument, the court must begin its task of constitutional interpretation by carefully considering the language used in the Constitution. But …. A generous and purposive interpretation is to be given to constitutional provisions protecting human rights.”

8. A Summary … v.

9. U.S. v. U.K.  grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther -Lord Wensleydale – Grey v Pearson ‘American judges generally have used a more flexible approach when deciding upon the relative priority of the rules’ - Justice Reed’s opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. American Trucking Association.

10. U.S. v. U.K.  U.S. Constitution written & more controversial provisions at much higher level of generality  judges forced to deploy the rules of interpretation at correspondingly more general levels No written constitution, and Principle of Parliamentary Supremacy