The Role of Interpretation in Legal Decision-Making

Mandla involved the interpretation of the statutory provisions in the Race Relations Act 1976. The question was whether Sikhs constituted a racial group within the meaning of Section 3. One of the issues in the case was what could be the construction of the word ‘ethnic’ as based on the construction of this word, it would be determined whether Sikhs as a group constituted a racial group and get protection against racial discrimination under racial grounds in Section 3. The Court of Appeals’ approach to this issue as seen in the judgment of Lord Denning was formalistic in nature, where the literal and narrow view was taken of the term ‘ethnic’. This led to the court deciding against the petitioner on the ground that Sikhs do not constitute a racial group getting protection under the Act. This is opposed to a teleological approach taken later by the House of Lords, which saw the latter court applying a broader construction to answer the question and holding that Sikhs did constitute a racial group. Therefore, the difference in how the two courts approached the issue of construction of the term ‘ethnic’ became essential to how the case was decided. Lord Denning interpreted the word ‘ethnic’ by referring to the literal dictionary meaning of the term and reading the term in conjunction with ‘origin’ (also appearing in Section 3), he held that Sikhs cannot be defined in terms of ethnic origins. On the other hand, the House of Lords used a teleological approach to the construction of ethnic and held that Parliament must have used the term in a popular sense and not with the intention of there being any need to provide a scientific proof of biological characteristics. The populist meaning of the term today would include common factors of shared history. Thus, applying this broader interpretation, Sikhs would constitute a racial group on ethnic grounds. If you are seeking Law Dissertation Help, understanding such nuances in legal interpretation is crucial for comprehensive analysis and argumentation.

In Begum, the House of Lords decided that the school could deny entry to a Muslim girl in her school because she was wearing her jiljab although the Court of Appeal had decided in her favour. One of the issues before the court was whether jiljab was an Islamic dress, which came within the protection of the right to manifest religion under Article 9 (1) of the ECHR. The House of Lords adopted a narrow approach to understanding the issue of Islamic dress, by holding that the court could not be called on to address this issue at this time and that evidence showed that the salwar kameez is the archetypal of Islamic dress. The interpretation of the dress rule within Islam itself is so wide that there is no one interpretation of the same; and religion itself is subject to personal interpretation; in this scenario, the court held that the school authorities would have to interpret the provisions of the Human Rights Act when making rules about uniform in a way that is sensitive and the courts.

In Begum, the court refused to intervene in the decision of the school authorities, which is in contrast to the decision made in Mandla v Dowell Lee, holding that there was no interference with the rights of the student. Unlike in Mandla, the House of Lords in Begum was not required to interpret racial group on ethnic grounds, but was required to interpret the meaning of the Islamic dress code. Unlike in Mandla, where the court took a teleological approach to interpreting ethnicity based on populist conceptualisation, in Begum the court did not resort to such a measure on interpreting the populist conceptualisation of religious dress.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to The Role of Case Law in English Legal System.

---

1. Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] QB 1; [1983] 2 AC 548.
2. Sharon Hanson, Legal Method, Skills and Reasoning (Routledge 2009).
3. R (Begum) v Governors of Denbigh High School ([2007] 1 AC 100).
4. Susan Edwards, ‘Imagining Islam-Of Meaning and Metaphor Symbolising the Jilbab-R (Begum) v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School’ (2007) 19 Child & Fam. L. Q 247.
5. Sylvie Bacquet, ‘School Uniforms, Religious Symbols and The Human Rights Act 1998: The 'Purity Ring' Case’ (2008) Education Law Journal 8.
6. Robin Hopkins and Can V. Yeginsu, ‘Religious liberty in British courts: a critique and some guidance’ (2008) 49 (11) Harvard International Law Journal Online 28.

Books

Hanson S, Legal Method, Skills and Reasoning (Routledge 2009).

Journals

Bacquet S, ‘School Uniforms, Religious Symbols and The Human Rights Act 1998: The 'Purity Ring' Case’ (2008) Education Law Journal 8.

Edwards S, ‘Imagining Islam-Of Meaning and Metaphor Symbolising the Jilbab-R (Begum) v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School’ (2007) 19 Child & Fam. L. Q 247.

Hopkins R and Yeginsu CV, ‘Religious liberty in British courts: a critique and some guidance’ (2008) 49 (11) Harvard International Law Journal Online 28.