Law Weblog

R v Z [2005] HL

Thursday 26 May 2005 at 9:09 pm | In News | Post Comment

[Statutory interpretation – prevailing approach, purposive or mischief approach preferred]
D (Z) was convicted of being a member of a proscribed (banned) organisation. He appealed on the ground that the legislation proscribed the IRA but no the Real IRA.

Held: The reference to “the Irish Republican Army” (“the IRA”) in the list of proscribed organisations in the Terrorism Act 2000 had been intended to include breakaway groups and thus included the “Real Irish Republican Army”, even though the Real IRA was not, as such, listed.
Statutes enacted with the object of suppressing terrorism proscribed the IRA included all emanations, manifestations and representations of the IRA even thought they had never been listed by Parliament.

But the interpretation of a statute is a far from academic exercise. It is directed to a particular statute, enacted at a particular time, to address (almost invariably) a particular problem or mischief.

Lord Bingham believed that the historical context was of fundamental, and in the end conclusive, importance. He cited R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] HL: “The court’s task, within the permissible bounds of interpretation, is to give effect to Parliament’s purpose. So the controversial provisions should be read in the context of the statute as a whole, and the statute as a whole should be read in the historical context of the situation which led to its enactment.”