Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex parte Spath Holme, [2001] 2 AC 349, [2001] 2 WLR 15
Citation:Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex parte Spath Holme, [2001] 2 AC 349, [2001] 2 WLR 15
Rule of thumb: Can you use a comment by an MP in the Westminster Parliament to support the interpretation of a statute? Only if it is clear that all the MP’s were absolutely clear on the point – if there is any debate over contradiction over it then it is irrelevant as a secondary source of law.
Judgment:
‘Unless Parliamentary statements are indeed clear and unequivocal [...] the court is likely to be drawn into comparing one statement with another, appraising the meaning and effect of what was said and considering what was left unsaid and why. In the course of such an exercise the court would come uncomfortably close to questioning the proceedings in Parliament contrary to article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 (1 Will & Mary, sess 2, c 2) and might even violate that important constitutional prohibition.133 R v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex parte Spath Holme Ltd [2001] 2 AC 349 at 39. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 provides that ' debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament'. Lord Bingham
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.