The normativity of the principle of legality.

• Jurisdiction: Australia
• Author: Lim, Brendan
• Date: 01 August 2013

The constitutional justification for the principle of legality has been transformed. Its original basis in a positive claim about authentic legislative intention has been repudiated. Statutes today are so far-reaching that it would be wrong to suppose any actual improbability in legislative intentions to abrogate common law rights. Two rival justifications for the principle have emerged in response. One is a refined positive claim: legislatures do not intend to abrogate fundamental' rights. The other is a normative claim: courts should attribute an intention not to abrogate rights in order to improve the political process. Distinguishing these justifications answers the vexed question of which rights engage the principle of legality. 'Fundamental' rights, in the first claim, just are those rights that legislatures do not, in fact, intend to abrogate. The normativity of the second claim is engaged not by fundamental' rights, but by 'vulnerable' rights not adequately protected by the ordinary political process. 'Vulnerable' rights may originate not only in the common law but also in statutes.

CONTENTS I Introduction II The Principle of Legality Transformed A Myth of Continuity B Original Justification and Critique C Accommodations of the Critique 1 Positive Refinement: 'Fundamental' Rights 2 Normative Refinements D Provisional Conclusion III Rights Engaging the Principle of Legality A Fundamental Rights B Vulnerable Rights 1 Objection from Democracy 2 Answering the Objection C Statutory Rights IV Conclusion 'A statement concerning the improbability that Parliament would abrogate fundamental rights by the use of general or ambiguous words is not a factual prediction ... [I]t is an expression of a legal value'. (1)

I INTRODUCTION

The principle of legality does not enjoy the continuous historical pedigree that is widely supposed. I use 'principle of legality' in its narrow and 'rather strange' (2) sense to mean the interpretive presumption against legislative abrogation of fundamental common law rights. That presumption is, of course, just one aspect of the principle of legality, which is a wider set of constitutional precepts requiring that any governmental action be undertaken only under positive authorisation. The principle of legality, in the narrow sense, manifests in a 'clear statement principle' according to which courts will not, in the absence of clear statutory words, impute to legislatures an intention to abrogate fundamental common law rights. Although the principle seems outwardly familiar, its legitimating underpinnings shifted over the course of the 20th century. Those underpinnings appear still to be unsettled. I do not mean simply that the content and scope of the principle has evolved over time. The courts have transformed the principle's very constitutional justification. When Gleeson CJ said that it is 'not a factual prediction', (3) his Honour might have said that it is not any longer a factual prediction, for it once was. One objective of this article is to chronicle the transformation from fact to value, an understanding of which is important in its own right. Another objective is to explain the significance of the transformation for the proper approach to the content and scope of the principle.

The clear statement principle was first articulated as a set of positive claims about the improbability of legislative abrogation of rights. The claims were positive in the sense that they sought to describe authentic legislative intentions--that is, what the legislature actually meant or intended. Throughout this article, I will refer to what the legislature 'actually meant or intended' as an inexact shorthand for the somewhat more subtle concept of what the legislature appears to have intended ... to mean, given evidence of its intention that is readily available to its intended audience'. (4) This textualist subtlety does not detract from the essentially positive, or descriptive, character of claims about that intention. Founded upon a combination of political trust and forensic experience, the claims originally underpinning the clear statement principle were addressed to what legislatures were in fact likely to have intended in relation to the displacement of the general law, including common law rights. But as the reach of the activist regulatory state expanded during the 20lh century, those claims became increasingly implausible. They must be regarded now as descriptively untenable. Yet the principle of legality remains. The courts have renovated the principle of legality to accommodate the sociological changes that accompanied the rise of the regulatory state.

There are now two rival justifications for the principle, each one having emerged from a distinct path of accommodation. On the one hand, there has emerged a refined positive basis for the presumption: it is said to be engaged not simply by 'rights', but by 'fundamental' rights. These rights, so the argument goes, are so 'fundamental' that their intentional abrogation, even by an activist legislature, is highly improbable. This claim is buttressed by a further claim that Parliament can be taken--once again in fact--to have drafted its legislation against the known operation of the presumption. I will call this justification for the principle of legality the 'positive refinement'. On the other hand, there is a new normative justification for the presumption, which I will call the 'normative refinement'. This justification advances a set of claims about the constitutional relationship between courts and legislatures: courts should, it is claimed, prevent legislatures from abrogating rights, otherwise than by clear words, in order to enhance electoral accountability and the political process. This 'normativity' of the principle of legality places less emphasis on authentic legislative intentions. It is concerned to attribute, rather than to discern, intention. It is concerned not with 'a factual prediction', but with la legal value'. (5)

It is useful at this point to expand on the relationship between the principle of legality and the nature of legislative intention. Legislative intention is relevant to statutory construction in the sense that 'the duty of a court is to give the words of a statutory provision the meaning that the legislature is taken to have intended them to have'. (6) When a court 'takes' a legislature to have intended words to have particular meaning, it engages in an objective exercise, and not a subjective exercise, of discerning and attributing intention. Although the exercise 'must begin with a consideration of the text itself', (7) the court also has regard to '[t]he context of the words, the consequences of a literal or grammatical construction, the purpose of the statute [and] the canons of construction'. (8) The principle of legality or clear statement principle is such a 'canon of construction. My argument is about the competing justifications for this canon. Both the positive justification and the normative justification are consistent with the duty of the court to give statutory words their 'legal meaning' in accordance with an objective legislative intention. (9) Both are consistent with the view that 'judicial findings as to legislative intention are an expression of the constitutional relationship between the arms of government with respect to the making, interpretation and application of laws'. (10) But only the normative justification, and not the positive justification, is consistent also with the view that findings as to legislative intention are not expressions of any ontological truth, the very idea of which is said to be 'a fiction which serves no useful purpose'. (11) Importantly, however, the normative justification does not entail that view. It does not necessarily deny the existence of discernible, authentic legislative intentions. It could be formulated in terms only that in some circumstances courts may be justified in attributing an intention that might not coincide with the authentic intention.

The debate about the authenticity of legislative intentions is too important and too rich for me to engage directly here. (12) I simply emphasise that both camps in that debate can coherently embrace the normativity of the principle of legality, while those who reject authentic legislative intention as a 'fiction' cannot embrace positive justifications for the principle of legality. That is because the positive justifications depend centrally upon claims about the existence and content of an authentic intention. That at least a majority of the present High Court appears to adhere to the view that legislative intention is an unhelpful fiction underscores the importance of studying the distinctive features of the normative justification for the principle of legality.

The categorical distinction between interpretive canons that are justified by considerations of (positive) expected meaning and those that are justified by (normative) policy considerations is well-recognised by diverse theorists in the United States, (13) although those theorists can, of course, disagree about the proper classification of any given canon. (14) Also recognised is the possibility that the justification for a single canon may change over time, and change categorically from being positive in character to normative in character. For example, of the constitutional-doubt canon', according to which American courts construe a statute to 'avoid[] placing its constitutionality in doubt', Scalia and Garner identify its original basis in 'a genuine assessment of probable meaning'. But, they continue, because '[t]he modern Congress sails close to the wind [constitutionally speaking] all the time', expected meaning 'is today a dubious rationale' and '[a] more plausible basis for the rule is that it represents judicial policy'. (15)

My claim is that something similar has occurred in relation to the principle of legality. But...