[33.1] Put simply, inadmissible considerations are considerations of a type that ought not be taken into account in statutory interpretation. The reason why such considerations ought not be given any weight is that they do not point to the legislative intention.

This chapter explores the different ways of approaching judicial review, and makes some initial criticisms of the historical ‘ultra vires debate’ of the 1990s and 2000s. It argues for a return to the concept of jurisdiction (and jurisdictional error) as a central category of the law, and for a focus on non-statutory executive powers as a primary case for and from which to build a theory of the supervisory jurisdiction. While legislative intention is important, wherever it is relevant, it is not relevant where the official powers in question obviously derive from rules of competence outside of legislation. Further, common law rules of conduct are always central to judicial review in the context of statutory grants of power. This insight is conducive to a simpler and more powerful conception of judicial review based around a common law doctrine of ultra vires.

While legislation is enacted by the Legislative Council (or under its authority), the courts have a role in the interpretation of legislation. This chapter discusses the various common law approaches to statutory interpretation that are likely to be adopted by Hong Kong courts. Moreover, this chapter goes through the aids to interpretation within an ordinance, external aids to interpretation, presumptions which protect basic values, interpretation of the Basic Law and resolving conflicts found in bilingual legislation. A case study is used to illustrate how the courts balance different interpretive considerations. Recognising how judges interpret laws will help hone the skills of legal reasoning (thinking like a judge).