ABSTRACT
Conventions are distinguishable from laws in a number of important respects. First, the source of a legal rule is, for the most part, identifiable and certain. In searching for a legal rule, its source will normally be found within a judicial decision or within an Act of Parliament. Conventions are far less certain in their origins, and it may at times be difficult to see whether a particular form of conduct is, for example, one of practice or convention. Secondly, the core content of a legal rule will generally have a settled meaning. One often-cited example illustrates the point. In Chapter VII of The Concept of Law, Professor HLA Hart offers the example of the correct interpretation of the word ‘vehicle’ in a statute or delegated legislation (for example, in local authority bylaws). A judge, interpreting the word within the context of a trial concerning an alleged violation of a bylaw prohibiting the use of vehicles in a public park, will be clear, for example, that a motor car, van or armoured truck will fall within the meaning of the word ‘vehicle’. But what of a skateboard or its successor, rollerblades? A skateboard shares some of the characteristics of the other examples given: a skateboard is a wheeled object and capable of conveying a person from point A to point B. Is it then a ‘vehicle’? Professor Hart makes two important points here. The first point is that to make sense of the word ‘vehicle’, the word must be placed within its broader context. That is to say, the question must be asked: ‘For what purpose was the rule devised?’ In other words, can the judge provide an interpretation which is meaningful within the context of the legislature’s intention?
