Re: Investigatory Powers Bill

--94eb2c000e025a4e1c05385510c6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

2016-07-23 16:24 GMT+01:00 Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186-1HOZaDBbGgxaa/[email protected]>:
>
>
> Not quite what happened in Pepper v Hart - the only evidence from Hansard
> considered was that of a single Treasury Secretary, rather than the entire
> debate.


The best explanation of Pepper v Hart is that it was intended to prevent
the sponsor of the bill from being able to make an unequivocal statement to
the house which was then resiled from by the tax authorities when they had
to argue the point.

The problem with reading Parliamentary debates is that (i) you'd have to
read the whole debate; and (ii) even then you'd have no idea why the MPs
voted in the ways they actually did. They may have heard the arguments but
not agreed with any of them.

In particular self-serving statements by governments about the bills they
are promoting ought to be out of order.

Most of the highest authority supports the above - i.e. the rule is very
circumscribed.

In practice in appellate courts counsel far too often try to press on
judges Parliamentary material in areas where there's no authority and/or
confusion. I've seen that quite a few times, though no-one has tried it on
me that I can recall. But I don't get many counsel addressing me. If I did
who knows?

So people try it. Judges sometimes are influenced by it even though they
should not be.

-- 
Francis Davey

--94eb2c000e025a4e1c05385510c6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">2016-07-23 16:24 GMT+01:00 Peter Fairbrother <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:zenadsl6186-1HOZaDBbGgxaa/[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]=
k</a>&gt;</span>:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Not quite what happened in Pepper v Hart - the only evidence from Hansard c=
onsidered was that of a single Treasury Secretary, rather than the entire d=
ebate.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The best explanation of Pepper v Har=
t is that it was intended to prevent the sponsor of the bill from being abl=
e to make an unequivocal statement to the house which was then resiled from=
 by the tax authorities when they had to argue the point.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>The problem with reading Parliamentary debates is that (i) you&#39;=
d have to read the whole debate; and (ii) even then you&#39;d have no idea =
why the MPs voted in the ways they actually did. They may have heard the ar=
guments but not agreed with any of them.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>In =
particular self-serving statements by governments about the bills they are =
promoting ought to be out of order.</div><div><br></div><div>Most of the hi=
ghest authority supports the above - i.e. the rule is very circumscribed.</=
div><div><br></div><div>In practice in appellate courts counsel far too oft=
en try to press on judges Parliamentary material in areas where there&#39;s=
 no authority and/or confusion. I&#39;ve seen that quite a few times, thoug=
h no-one has tried it on me that I can recall. But I don&#39;t get many cou=
nsel addressing me. If I did who knows?<br></div><div><br></div><div>So peo=
ple try it. Judges sometimes are influenced by it even though they should n=
ot be.</div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signature" data=
-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature">Francis Davey<br><br></div>
</div></div>

--94eb2c000e025a4e1c05385510c6--