ABSTRACT
This case is important for the fact that it replaced the long standing rule denying judges the right to use parliamentary debates to decide the meaning of legislation. Students must, of course, have a close knowledge of the case and, in particular, do the following:
• refer to the rules of interpretation and the secondary aids to construction; • distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic aids to construction, providing
explanatory examples of each; • consider the previous use of parliamentary debates in court cases; • consider the decision in Pepper v Hart in some detail and offer a view as to
its likely effect.
