R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Simms, 2000 2 AC 115
Citation:R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Simms, 2000 2 AC 115
Rule of thumb:Does human rights case-law have to be taken into account when interpreting statutes normally? Yes, it does. This counts under the ‘absurd’ part of the ‘Golden rule’ of interpretation. Where an interpretation of a statute or Regulation would violate a human right there is a presumption that this is not the interpretation which Parliament intended.
Background facts:
The basic facts were that Simms, a convicted murderer, wanted to do an oral interview with journalists, but prison rules made by a Government Minister under the Prisons Act 1952 and a Regulation passed off the back of this banned him from doing so. The Court held that this violated Simms’ human right to freedom of expression. In short, prisoners are allowed to do interviews with journalists.
Judgment:
The Court in this case laid out the basics why statutes have to be interpreted in accordance with human rights. The Court affirmed that Parliament does have the right to violate human rights with its statutes, and can affirm that they are derogating from human rights with the Act. Therefore, if they do not do this, it is presumed that the politicians in Parliament who passed it did not intend to pass the Act of the nature that they did, either through not noticing this in the Parliamentary process, or not being aware of how it would operate in practice – it is therefore presumed that Parliament did not want for the UK to become fascist/a human rights violating regime. The Court in this sense that Parliamentary Sovereignty and the power of statutes is therefore not absolute, and that human rights law is an important part of jurisprudence.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘Parliamentary Sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights... But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost. Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words. This is because there is too great a risk that the full implications of their unqualified meaning may have passed unnoticed in the democratic process. In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the Courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual. In this way the Courts of the United Kingdom, though acknowledging the sovereignty of Parliament, apply principles of constitutionality little different from those which exist in countries where the power of the legislature is expressly limited by a constitutional document’, Lord Hoffman.
‘Freedom of expression is, of course intrinsically important: it is valued for its own sake. But it is well recognised that it is also instrumentally important. It serves a number of broad objectives. First, it promotes the self-fulfilment of individuals in society. Secondly, in the famous words of Holmes J (echoing John Stuart Mill), ‘The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market’: Abrams v United States (1919) 250 US 616, 630, per Holmes J (dissenting). Thirdly, freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The free flow of information and ideas informs political debate. It is a safety valve: people are more ready to accept decisions that go against them if they can in principle seek to influence them. It acts as a brake on the abuse of power by public officials. It facilitates the exposure of errors in the governance and administration of justice of the country’, Lord Steyn
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.