In R (Coughlan) v Minister for the Cabinet Office, the UK Supreme Court held that the Minister for the Cabinet Office acted lawfully when making orders which introduced, as a pilot scheme, a requirement for voter identification 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 first 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.

中文翻译：

---

R (Coughlan) 诉内阁府部长案中的立法意图推定

在R (Coughlan)诉内阁府部长案中，英国最高法院认为，内阁办公厅大臣在下令时合法行事，作为试点计划，在某些地方当局区域的地方政府选举中引入了选民身份证明的要求。该案涉及对 2000 年《人民代表法》第 10 条的解释，命令是根据该条做出的。本说明认为，法院错误地得出第 10 条规定的权力的预期范围是明确的，而没有首先分析先前的问题，即该权力是否必须被限制性地解释。法院的推理似乎误解了推定的运作，支持对干涉基本权利和“亨利八世权力”的限制性解释。本说明提出，最终，法院'