How the Human Rights Act Affects Statutory Interpretation
Learn how the Human Rights Act 1998 affects statutory interpretation through compatible readings, section 3, section 4 and Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza.
The Human Rights Act 1998 has made compatibility with Convention rights an important part of statutory interpretation. Under section 3, courts must read and give effect to legislation in a way that is compatible with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, so far as it is possible to do so. This applies to both Acts of Parliament and subordinate legislation, such as regulations.
How does section 3 work?
Statutory interpretation means deciding what the words of legislation mean when applying them to a case. Section 3 can require a court to adopt a meaning that is different from the most obvious reading of the words. The court may read words broadly or narrowly to make the law compatible with a Convention right, provided the interpretation remains possible and does not change a fundamental feature of the legislation.
In Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza, the House of Lords interpreted a tenancy succession provision so that it could protect a same-sex partner who had lived with the tenant. Reading the provision only as covering an opposite-sex partner would have been incompatible with Convention rights.
What if a compatible reading is impossible?
A court cannot use section 3 to rewrite an Act in a way that contradicts its fundamental purpose. Instead, certain higher courts may make a declaration of incompatibility under section 4. This identifies the conflict but does not invalidate the Act or automatically change the law. Parliament decides whether to amend it.
The key exam distinction is between interpreting legislation compatibly under section 3 and declaring that compatibility is impossible under section 4. Do not say that the Human Rights Act allows judges to strike down an Act of Parliament.
