Legal Argument

When I was teaching Law to undergraduates in Northampton, I would regularly take small groups of my students for unofficial tours of Westminster. Part of the day involved sitting in the hearings of the Law Lords. It was both interesting and informative - and a useful introduction for aspirant lawyers to legal argument. We even got to see both argument and the decision in Pepper v Hart.

Sadly, I no longer have the opportunity (the time) to listen to hearings before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. However, since the 1990s we have the internet - and hearings can be viewed on the Supreme Court website - though in recent years I've relied on reading the decisions - rather than viewing the hearings.

However a friend asked whether I had watched this weeks hearing in the Isle of Wight v Platt case. I hadn't, but took the opportunity to watch (some) of the hearing. It's a wonderful resource for anyone wishing to understand how legal argument is conducted, especially when it is a matter of statutory interpretation.

The case concerns the legal duty of a parent to ensure that their child attend school regularly. In this case the parent fulfilled that duty well - except that they withdrew their child from school for a few days in order to take the child on holiday. They were fined - but never paid. The case looks at what the legislation means in practice.


The decision of the original court can be read at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/1283.html

I am unable to embed the videos of the hearings - but they can be accessed at

Morning session - https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc-2016-0155/310117-am.html
Afternoon session - https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc-2016-0155/310117-pm.html

The Justices are now considering their decision - keep an eye on the Supreme Court website, and once the decision iOS delivered, the full law report will be available.


If I were still teaching, I would use this case to illustrate legal argument; and how statutory interpretation is undertaken. At one point one of the justices identifies what he thought the ratio decidendi of an earlier case and invites the lawyer to respond. If you are studying law this case is worth watching.

Pepper v Hart

I mentioned the case of Pepper v Hart in yesterday's post. It was quite a breakthrough - prior to the decision, it was not possible to argue using Hansard, what the "intention of Parliament" was. While there were good reasons for the original rule, it did seem strange that the one document which recorded the reasons for introducing a bill and the aims of the proposed legislation couldn't be used.

The speech of the Minister or member who brought forward the bill during Second Reading usually sets out the "mischief" which the proposed legislation sets out to address. MPs and Peers will use the legislative process to get explanations about the intended effect of specific words and phrases. Ministers may seek to assure the House about the meaning (and what is NOT intended).

The House of Commons Library produced a paper on the decision - and what we may now call "The rule in Pepper v Hart". The paper states -

"Following the decision in Pepper v Hart in 1993, if primary legislation is ambiguous or obscure the courts may in certain circumstances take account of statements made in Parliament by Ministers or other promoters of a Bill in construing that legislation. Until that decision, using Hansard in that way would have been regarded as a breach of Parliamentary privilege.”

The paper is available here.
 


  

Lawyers Obits

I was going to write a post about some of the judges that law students will recognise from law reports. I intended to start with Lord Denning. The first page I came upon to undertake some research was the Daily Telegraph's obituary - and I became distracted.

The Telegraph has a whole series of obits about people associated with the law. I thoroughly recommend taking a look around. It can be accessed at

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/law-obituaries/

It is of course being added to all the time! It covers not just judges; but  famous barristers and solicitors (though their fame may derive from other activities); academics (students may recognise the names of certain textbooks); and others involved with the law.

I also discovered that "Hart" of Pepper v Hart was the first person to win Mastermind! (I used to take students on unofficial tours of the Palace of Westminster - when I was a full time law lecturer, and before I worked at Westminster & had a pass! - and I took one group in to hear arguments in that case - and we saw the actual judgment being delivered - it just happened that we were there on the days!)

Law is certainly a profession which produces some interesting characters!