{"id":202,"date":"2005-05-26T21:09:02","date_gmt":"2005-05-26T21:09:02","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2005-05-26T21:09:02","modified_gmt":"2005-05-26T21:09:02","slug":"r-v-z-2005-hl","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/?p=202","title":{"rendered":"R v Z [2005] HL"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>[Statutory interpretation \u2013 prevailing approach, purposive or mischief approach preferred]<\/strong> <br \/>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. <\/p>\n<p><strong>Held<\/strong>: The reference to &#8220;the Irish Republican Army&#8221; (&#8220;the IRA&#8221;) in the list of proscribed organisations in the <strong><em>Terrorism Act 2000<\/em><\/strong> had been intended to include breakaway groups and thus included the &#8220;Real Irish Republican Army&#8221;, even though the Real IRA was not, as such, listed. <br \/>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. <\/p>\n<p>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. <\/p>\n<p><strong>Lord Bingham<\/strong> believed that the historical context was of fundamental, and in the end conclusive, importance. He cited <strong><u><em>R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health<\/em> [2003] HL<\/u><\/strong>: <em>&#8220;The court&#8217;s task, within the permissible bounds of interpretation, is to give effect to Parliament&#8217;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.&#8221;<\/em> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[Statutory interpretation \u2013 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 &#8220;the Irish Republican Army&#8221; (&#8220;the IRA&#8221;) in the list of proscribed organisations [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-202","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=202"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=202"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=202"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=202"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}