Hello, I'm really struggling to decode the statement in this essay Q. I think it's asking about statutory interpretation but I'm not sure
“There is, I think, no inconsistency between the rule that statutory language retains the meaning it had when Parliament used it and the rule that the statute is always speaking.”
To what extent do you agree?
What does this legal question mean pls?? watch
- Thread Starter
- 19-10-2017 02:17
- 19-10-2017 12:56
Yes, it is quite an esoteric question. I don't know if it relates to something in your lectures or the person who set the question likes being tricky.
It seems to be an American-esque question about originalism vs an evolution of meaning over time. Are those two points of compatible? But your lecture handouts should be able to shed some light on that.