header-logo header-logo

Impartial interpretation?

10 June 2010 / David Burrows
Issue: 7421 / Categories: Features , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

David Burrows breaks a self-imposed ordinance

When the French revolutionary National Constituent Assembly dissolved itself in 1791 it decreed a self-denying ordinance, that none of its members could sit in its successor body, the Legislative Assembly: a representative who had passed a constitutional law reform could not be its interpreter.

In R (Cart & Ors) v The Upper Tribunal & Ors [2009] EWHC 3052 (Admin), [2010] 1 All ER 908 Laws LJ makes a similar point (concerning the challenge of the finality of an Upper Tribunal decision): “The interpreter [of a statutory provision cannot generally be] the public body which has to administer the relevant law: for in that case the decision-makers would write their own laws. The interpreter must be impartial, independent both of the legislature and of the persons affected by the texts’ application, and authoritative—accepted as the last word, subject only to any appeal. Only a court can fulfil the role.”

The decision-maker must self-deny a role as “interpreter”, as distinct from enforcer, of a statute under which that decision-maker operates.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll