Presumptions of Legislative Intent in R (Coughlan) v Minister for the Cabinet Office
| Published date | 01 May 2023 |
| Author | Luciana Morón |
| Date | 01 May 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12797 |
bs_bs_banner
Modern Law Review
DOI:10.1111/1468-2230.12797
Presumptions of Legislative Intent in R (Coughlan) v
Minister for the Cabinet Oce
Luciana Morón∗
In R (Coughlan) vMinister for the Cabinet Oce, the UK Supreme Court held that the Minister
for the Cabinet Oce acted lawfully when making orders which introduced,as a pilot scheme,
a requirement for voter identication in local government elections in certain local authority
areas. The case turned on the interpretation of section 10 of the Representation of the People
Act 2000, pursuant to which the orders were made. This note argues that the Court erred when
it concluded that the intended scope of the power created by section 10 was clear without
rst analysing the prior question of whether that power had to be interpreted restrictively. The
Court’s reasoning appears to misunderstand the operation of the presumptions in favour of a
restrictive interpretation of interferences with fundamental rights and of ‘Henry VIII powers’.
This note submits that, ultimately, the Court’s approach threatens to erode the principle of
legality.
INTRODUCTION
In R (Coughlan) vMinister for the Cabinet Oce1(Coughlan), the UK Supreme
Court held that a series of orders made by the Minister for the Cabinet Of-
ce introducing a temporary requirement for voter identication to vote in
local government elections in May 2019 in ten local authority areas (the Pi-
lot Orders) were lawful. The case turned on the interpretation of section
10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (RPA 2000), pursuant to
which the orders were made. One of the most interesting aspects of the rul-
ing is its treatment of two principles of statutory interpretation on which
the appellant grounded his claims: the principle of legality and the presump-
tion in favour of a restrictive interpretation of provisions conferring on the
executive powers to amend primary legislation (Henry VIII powers). This
case note argues that, at a time when the Court is being accused of re-
treating from its role in the protection of human rights and the review of
∗PhD candidate at University College London. I would like to thank Professor Je King,Professor
Colm O’Cinneide, and Professor Kevin Toh for illuminating discussions on this case and on pre-
sumptions of legislative intent more broadly. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewer for their
comments.
1R (on the application of Coughlan) vMinister for the Cabinet Oce [2022] UKSC 11.
© 2023 The Authors. The Modern Law Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Modern Law Review Limited.
(2023) 86(3) MLR 801–813
Thisis an open access ar ticle under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attr ibution License,which permits use,distr ibution and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
To continue reading
Request your trial