This submission addresses a single question arising from the Human Rights Bill 2018, which is the scope given to courts by cl 48 of the Bill in striving to achieve interpretations of legislation compatible with human rights.
DOI: doi:10.1093/slr/hmt023
B Coxon, 'Submission on the Human Rights Bill 2018, Clause 48' (2018) Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee, Parliament of Queensland
B Coxon, 'Human Rights at Common Law: Two Interpretive Principles' (2014) Statute Law Review 35
This essay explores the nature and status of two common law principles concerned with
the protection of human rights: the ‘principle of legality’ (legislation can only abrogate
certain common law rights expressly or by necessary implication) and the ‘treaty presumption’
(legislation is to be interpreted in accordance with the Crown’s obligations
under international treaties). The survey of these principles covers the law in England
and Wales, Australia, and New Zealand. In each of these countries, human rights legislation
applies, which contains an interpretive rule similar to the common law principles.
This essay demonstrates that, despite such statutory rules, the common law principles
continue to be relevant to varying degrees in the different countries under consideration.
In so doing, a useful summary of the issues surrounding the application of the principles
is provided, including consideration of whether ambiguity is required to be found before
the principles can come into play and the sort of statutory language that is required to
rebut the presumptions that they create. The essay concludes by raising the possibility
that Australia and New Zealand are departing from English law in this area.-
B Coxon, 'Open to Interpretation: The Implication of Words into Statutes' (2009) 30 Statute Law Review 1
ISBN: 1464-3863
DOI: doi:10.1093/slr/hmp001
ISBN: 1464-3863
Other (1)
This submission addresses a single question arising from the Human Rights Bill 2018, which is the scope given to courts by cl 48 of the Bill in striving to achieve interpretations of legislation compatible with human rights.
Journal Article (2)
DOI: doi:10.1093/slr/hmt023
B Coxon, 'Open to Interpretation: The Implication of Words into Statutes' (2009) 30 Statute Law Review 1
This essay explores the nature and status of two common law principles concerned with
the protection of human rights: the ‘principle of legality’ (legislation can only abrogate
certain common law rights expressly or by necessary implication) and the ‘treaty presumption’
(legislation is to be interpreted in accordance with the Crown’s obligations
under international treaties). The survey of these principles covers the law in England
and Wales, Australia, and New Zealand. In each of these countries, human rights legislation
applies, which contains an interpretive rule similar to the common law principles.
This essay demonstrates that, despite such statutory rules, the common law principles
continue to be relevant to varying degrees in the different countries under consideration.
In so doing, a useful summary of the issues surrounding the application of the principles
is provided, including consideration of whether ambiguity is required to be found before
the principles can come into play and the sort of statutory language that is required to
rebut the presumptions that they create. The essay concludes by raising the possibility
that Australia and New Zealand are departing from English law in this area.
ISBN: 1464-3863
DOI: doi:10.1093/slr/hmp001
ISBN: 1464-3863
Research Interests
Benedict’s primary area of research is statutory interpretation. His work covers related public law issues and extends to comparative public law, with a focus on Commonwealth countries.