This is an excellent (and witty) article by Guy Fetherstonhaugh QC. He reminds us legal people of the extent to which we can use the reports in Hansard to 'interpret' legislation in a way which is (perhaps) more favourable to our clients.
As for the use of Latin in legal arguments, a TCC judge (now retired) once said to a junior counsel who was contesting an application by my client, "Mr X please understand we do not use, inter alia, Latin in this court".
So for now, ave atque vale.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, with whom the majority agreed, said: “…reference to Parliamentary material should be permitted as an aid to the construction of legislation which is ambiguous or obscure or the literal meaning of which leads to an absurdity”.
But he also held that even in such cases, references in court to Parliamentary material should only be permitted where (a) legislation is ambiguous or obscure, or leads to an absurdity; (b) the material relied on consists of one or more statements by a minister or other promoter of the bill together if necessary with such other Parliamentary material as is necessary to understand such statements and their effect; and (c) the statements relied upon are clear.
/Passle/5a5609853d947616fc9f9485/SearchServiceImages/2024-02-12-14-17-57-474-65ca2895e9635b60ce2ab068.jpg)
/Passle/5a5609853d947616fc9f9485/SearchServiceImages/2024-04-25-16-23-59-732-662a839fd23a6cec5bf9483d.jpg)
/Passle/5a5609853d947616fc9f9485/SearchServiceImages/2024-03-12-10-58-02-690-65f0353ae719783e07ecfca3.jpg)
/Passle/5a5609853d947616fc9f9485/SearchServiceImages/2024-03-08-13-29-11-831-65eb12a7683f9034e0ab7386.jpg)