Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Transcript by Opus 2 International Limited Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers 5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3BF Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737 [email protected]
PROF. R GEORGE (instructed by Rayden Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. MR R JONES and MS E COLEBATCH (instructed by Freemans Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Child. MS A KAKONGE (instructed by the Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the Local Authority. MR C OSBORNE (Solicitor of Cafcass Legal) appeared as Amicus. ____________________
That is exactly the outcome that both the applicant and H in the present case seek.
Lord Steyn similarly held at paragraph that "Section 3 requires a broad approach concentrating, amongst other things, in a purposive way on the importance of the fundamental right involved." At paragraph 46, Lord Steyn described s 3 as the "lynch-pin of the legislative scheme" and, adopting the government's language when introducing the Bill, said that "Rights could only be effectively brought home if section 3(1) was the prime remedial measure, and section 4 a measure of last resort."
Lord Rodger cautioned that the issue was not about the number of words that had to be 'read in' to legislation to make it compatible, but rather in "a careful consideration of the essential principles and scope of the legislation being interpreted" (at paragraphs 115, 122 and 124):
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.