Hi, need to submit a 2500 words paper on the topic Landmark. The difficulty of this issue is illustrated in the aforementioned case where Article 3 of the HRA was invoked.
According to Article 3 of the HRA, “[s]o far as possible to do so, primary legislations and secondary legislation should be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights” (HRA 1998, Art 3), referring to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. By virtue of this provision, the conventional manner that statutory interpretation under the act, is therefore challenged, such that instead of giving effect to the intention of the legislators, which enacted particular statutes. statutory interpretation must now proceed in a manner that gives effect to the original intent of those who crafted the HRA provision. This shift away from the conventional procedure, therefore leads judges to stray in the grey area between judicial interpretation and law making, which endangers them of judicial vandalism and usurpation Parliament’s will.