ABSTRACT
Arguments over statutory bills of rights tend to mimic arguments over entrenched bills of rights. This chapter argues that the positive case: that there are good reasons to adopt a statutory bill of rights even if one accepts many of the arguments against the adoption of constitutionally entrenched bills. It concentrates on the judicial review of executive or legislative action. The chapter also concentrates on the positive justification for rights adjudication. It addresses the relative balance in the claims of certainty versus utility, in the context of statutory bills. Statutory bills universally require that courts interpret legislation in a manner consistent with the rights set out in the bills. Statutory bills in the United Kingdom (UK), New Zealand and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) permit courts to issue declarations of incompatibility, holding that legislation contravenes rights. In the UK ministers can respond to such declarations by amending the legislation by executive order, without further reference to parliament.
