seminar 3 real public law

1. Why do statutes need interpretation?

Words can have more than one meaning, so people can disagree about what a law means or how it applies. Courts decide the meaning. Their interpretation may become binding precedent.

2. What are the three classic rules and the two modern approaches to interpretation?

Literal rule: use the words’ literal meaning. Golden rule: use that meaning unless it creates an absurd or unjust result. Mischief rule: consider the problem Parliament wanted to fix. Modern literalism: focus on what a reasonable reader understands the words to mean in context. Purposivism: focus on what Parliament wanted the law to achieve.

3. How do interpretation rules and guidelines differ? Give an example of each.

A rule must be followed. A guideline helps judges decide but is not binding. Rule example: Scotland Act 1998, s.29(3), requiring consideration of purpose and effects. Guideline example: statutory endorsement, assuming Parliament adopts a word’s established meaning from earlier cases. The classic literal, golden and mischief “rules” work as guidelines.

4. What does it mean that a statute is always speaking?

An older law can apply to new situations. Its words are read in light of changing circumstances, rather than only the situation when the law was passed.

5. What are access rights under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003? Do they include bicycles?

Section 1 gives rights to be on land and cross it: the right to roam. Ordinary bicycles are included. Section 9(f) excludes motorised vehicles, and allowing cycling supports public access. Access must be responsible: avoid damaging land or disrupting its management. E-bikes raise a harder question because they have motors.

6. What are the Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics? Does vegetarianism qualify?

Section 4 lists: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation. Vegetarianism is not a separate characteristic. Under s.10, an underlying religious or philosophical belief might be protected. Religious or moral commitments may qualify, but this is not automatic. A diet followed only for health reasons might not qualify as philosophical belief.

7. Which Parliament passed the Scotland Act 1998?

The UK Parliament at Westminster. Section 1 established the Scottish Parliament.

8. Where are the Scottish Parliament’s law-making powers limited, and what does s.101 do?

Scotland Act 1998, s.29 sets the main limits. Schedule 5 lists reserved subjects. Schedule 4 protects certain laws from change. Section 101(2) says: if possible, read a provision as covering only what the Scottish Parliament has power to regulate. This keeps it valid. If no such reading is possible, the section cannot save it.

9. What income-tax powers does the Scottish Parliament have, and where are they found?

Scotland Act 1998, Part 4A, s.80C allows it to set income-tax rates and bands for Scottish taxpayers’ non-savings, non-dividend income, such as wages and pensions. It does this through a Scottish rate resolution. These powers do not cover tax on savings or dividends.

10. When did the Scotland Act 1998 receive Royal Assent and start operating?

Royal Assent: 19 November 1998. Different parts started at different times under s.130. Some started on Royal Assent; others needed a later order. The principal appointed day was 1 July 1999. The whole Act did not start operating on one date.

11. What was the background, legal issue and outcome of the 2022 referendum reference? Why was 2014 different?

Background: the Lord Advocate asked whether Scotland could make a law for another independence vote. Issue: did the bill concern reserved matters? Argument: the vote would be advisory, with no automatic legal effect. In 2014, a s.30 order had given the necessary power; no equivalent order existed for the new proposal. Decision: outside Scottish powers. Under s.29(3), the vote’s purpose and major political effects still concerned reserved constitutional matters, including the Union.

12. What happened in Imperial Tobacco v Lord Advocate: background, issue, argument, decision and reasons?

Background: Scottish law banned tobacco displays and vending machines. Issue: was this within Scottish powers? Argument: Imperial Tobacco said it concerned reserved product safety and sales to consumers. Decision: the challenge failed; the law stayed valid. Reason: under s.29(3), its purpose was to make tobacco less visible, reduce sales and reduce smoking, rather than regulate those reserved matters.