Abstract

In recent case-law under the Human Rights Act 1998, the senior judiciary have reiterated the view that their task under section 3(1) of the Act is one of ‘interpretation rather than legislation’. This article has two main aims. The first is to provide a general, theoretical analysis of the extent to which it is possible (if at all) to distinguish between interpretation and legislation. The second is to examine the judicial understanding of this distinction, as revealed through judgments in the HRA case-law