About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


27 Jud. Rev. 1 (2022)

handle is hein.journals/judire27 and id is 1 raw text is: JUDICIAL REVIEW Routledge 2022, VOL. 27, NO. 1, 1-15 https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2022.2066890 Taylor&Francis Group Statutory Interpretation after PRCBC and 0 v SSHD: Should we 'Waste the Court's Time a Great Deal Less in Looking at Background Material'? Miranda Butler Barrister, Landmark Chambers Abstract The issue of statutory interpretation, and the assistance to be gleaned in that process from pre-legislative and Parliamentary materials, has been on the minds of various Supreme Court justices in recent times. The recent judgment in Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens and O contains important warnings for practitioners wishing to rely on these materials but, furthermore, highlights what appears to be a sustained retreat from a more purposive, contextual style of interpretation into a more strictly literal approach. Such a trend would be constitutionally concerning, particularly at this time of legislative overhaul. Introduction 1. When can pre-legislative and Parliamentary materials be used as aids to statutory con- struction?' The Supreme Court's recent judgment in Project for the Registration of Chil- dren as British Citizens and O v Secretary of State for the Home Department ('PRCBC') has sounded a warning note to litigants seeking to rely on such ancillary tools as support for their preferred reading of legislation. 2. PRCBC concerned whether the Home Secretary was entitled to set fees for children applying for citizenship at £1,012, which lower courts had found was unaffordable and excluded a significant number of children from citizenship. The parties in the Supreme Court sought to rely upon the White Paper and statements made in Parlia- ment by the promoters of the British Nationality Bill during its passage through Parlia- ment. Those statements recognised that children who had lived in the UK for the first 10 years of their life should be able to obtain British citizenship. It was argued on the basis of these pre-legislative materials that Parliament, in passing the British National- ity Act 1981, could not have authorised subordinate legislation which cut down the important right to citizenship by setting fees at an unaffordable level. 'In this article, references to 'pre-legislative materials' include explanatory notes to Acts, Law Commission and Royal Commis- sion reports, notes from advisory committees and White Papers. References to 'Parliamentary materials' in this article refer to pre-legislative materials and Hansard. 2[2022] UKSC 3, [2022] 2 WLR 343. © 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group