“Woah! It's like Spotify but for academic articles.”

Instant Access to Thousands of Journals for just $40/month

Pepper v Hart: A Footnote to Professor Vogenauer’s Reply to Lord Steyn

Pepper v Hart: A Footnote to Professor Vogenauer’s Reply to Lord Steyn This Note is intended to stand as a short supplement to the compelling article by Stefan Vogenauer entitled, ‘A Retreat from Pepper v Hart? A Reply to Lord Steyn’ published in the Journal at the end of 2005. 1 In his article, Professor Vogenauer calls in question the argument advanced by Lord Steyn in his article in the Journal, entitled ‘ Pepper v Hart : A Re-examination’. 2 In that article, Lord Steyn called for a retreat from the decision of the House of Lords in Pepper v Hart 3 concerning the circumstances in which reference may be made to Hansard as an aid to statutory construction and for a reinterpretation of the decision in line with a theory that a Minister speaking in Parliament who gives an explanation of the meaning or effect of a clause in a Bill should be taken to create a binding legitimate expectation that the executive will apply the provision, once enacted, in that sense. In this Note, I express my agreement with Professor Vogenauer’s argument, and seek to support it with some additional points under three heads: (1) the proper interpretation of Pepper v Hart and its status as authority; (2) the basis in principle for adhering to that interpretation; and (3) conceptual difficulties attached to Lord Steyn’s legitimate expectation thesis. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Oxford University Press

Pepper v Hart: A Footnote to Professor Vogenauer’s Reply to Lord Steyn

Abstract

This Note is intended to stand as a short supplement to the compelling article by Stefan Vogenauer entitled, ‘A Retreat from Pepper v Hart? A Reply to Lord Steyn’ published in the Journal at the end of 2005. 1 In his article, Professor Vogenauer calls in question the argument advanced by Lord Steyn in his article in the Journal, entitled ‘ Pepper v Hart : A Re-examination’. 2 In that article, Lord Steyn called for a retreat from the decision of the House of Lords in Pepper v Hart 3 concerning the circumstances in which reference may be made to Hansard as an aid to statutory construction and for a reinterpretation of the decision in line with a theory that a Minister speaking in Parliament who gives an explanation of the meaning or effect of a clause in a Bill should be taken to create a binding legitimate expectation that the executive will apply the provision, once enacted, in that sense. In this Note, I express my agreement with Professor Vogenauer’s argument, and seek to support it with some additional points under three heads: (1) the proper interpretation of Pepper v Hart and its status as authority; (2) the basis in principle for adhering to that interpretation; and (3) conceptual difficulties attached to Lord Steyn’s legitimate expectation thesis.
Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/pepper-v-hart-a-footnote-to-professor-vogenauer-s-reply-to-lord-steyn-YWq0mD184g

Sorry, we don't have permission to share this article on DeepDyve,
but here are related articles that you can start reading right now: