Talk:Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I'll kick this off over the next day or so; seems like Ironholds is building up a backlog that could do with some attention. Was there an earlier review for this that got deleted? --Mkativerata (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oh. I just looked at the article talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  Yup; the previous review was written by an involved editor. Ironholds (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting article. I had no idea the UK took such a conservative approach to statutory interpretation. Overall, the article is very well-sourced, well-balanced and accessible to the lay reader. The “Significance” section in particular is excellent. Once the following issues are resolved, it can be passed.

Thanks muchly! I'm thinking FA at some point :). The problem with statutory interpretation is that Parliament Is Supreme until I finish my dissertation, jokingly and provisionally titled "why every other constitutional scholar is wrong", so you can only go so far before people start going on about the Unelected Judges Making Law And Interrupting The Democratic Process Etc. Ironholds (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Prose

I've made some very small changes myself. Some more:

• Since Steyn's lecture, there have been several judicial decisions which limited the precedent set by the House of Lords, preventing the use of Hansard as a source of law, in criminal law cases or to overrule precedent set prior to Pepper except in exceptional circumstances. The third comma here might be misplaced. Also, is it correct to say Hansard is being used as a “source of law”? Pepper v Hart only seems to go so far as to say it is an interpretive aid, which is less than a source of law. That's my reading of the Browne-Wilkinson passage.

  Indeed; the later case simply said "you cannot, under any circumstances...". Ironholds (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Who are the Special Commissioners? For the non-British reader, it would be helpful to explain.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  Added. Ironholds (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Vinelot ignored the Hansard issue, and, Hansard element of the case. It might be clearer if “issue” and “element of the case” in these two passages were changed to “statements”

  Removed the entire section, since it's actually wrong. Ironholds (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  Good to know! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the amounts in question, Vinelott decided that the 1/5th paid by the teachers adequately covered the second category, and reversed the Special Commissioners' decision. Is this correct? The “second category” refers to the actual cost of the teachers' children, whereas it seems Vinelott applied the “first category” in ruling against the teachers.

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  I think "adequately" might now need to be "inadequately" then, because if Vinelott found that the teachers adequate;y covered the average cost of pupils as well, he surely would have upheld the Commissioners decision? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some other small issues but they're not grammatical errors or relevant to the parts of the MOS that must be complied with under the GA Criteria. They would only be relevant to an FA nomination. So I haven't dealt with them here.

Factually accurate and verifiable

No issues here. Excellent use of secondary sources.

Broad

No issues here. Covers the background, the judgment and its significance with balance.

Neutral

Did any academics praise the decision? The “Reception” section presents quite a one-sided criticism of the judgment with the reliance on Kavanagh and Baker. In my personal opinion, the judgment is quite sensible and Kavanagh in particular grossly overstates its ramifications. But I'm well aware that legal academics like to criticise judgments and rarely say “this judgment makes sense”, so there may very well not be any praise to include. Overall, if there isn't any praise to balance the criticism, I don't think it breaches the “neutral criteria” as you've been careful to attribute the criticisms to Kavanagh and Baker rather than stating the criticisms as given.

There may well be some pros, but I've yet to find any. Personally I quite like the decision, but as stated above I like bashing on parliamentary sovereignty. There are (frustratingly) around 40 journal articles on the case I don't have authorisation to access through Westlaw, and there may be something there; if you know any practising British lawyers or law students at a more reputable institution, I'm dying to get at those articles. Ironholds (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is ok as it is for GA, but I think a fulsome overview of the sources available might be warranted for FA. I have some access to Westlaw so I'll have a look when I go back to work on Tuesday (but that need not hold up this GA). Could the heading "reception" be changed to "criticism"? That might be a bit more up front to help the reader understand that what they're about to read is fairly one-sided. I managed to get a similar one-sided "criticism" section on a case through FA so I don't think it's a big issue. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do; if you could email any case comments, academic commentary or the like you can see to thedarkthird[at]hotmail[dot]co[dot]uk I'd be most grateful. Ironholds (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Stable

Obviously there have been some issues here, which is quite suprising for this kind of topic. The article has now been stable for two weeks and a clear talk page consensus has emerged that the current version of the article is preferred. On that basis, I'm willing to pass it on this criterion.

Images

None would be appropriate.

--Mkativerata (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And... passed as all issues resolved. Well done! --Mkativerata (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)