Re: Lawful and lawless
Irrelevant. Ministers are representatives of the Executive branch (The Crown) not the Legislative branch (Parliament). A Minister can certify what his department interprets the law to mean. Only the Judicial Branch can issue a ruling regarding what the law actually is.
Governments and Ministers don't make laws or binding interpretations of law. Parliament makes law, Courts interpret law and the Government enforces law. A Ministerial declaration simply means that the department sees no incompatibility and it will instruct its agents (Police) accordingly. Statement of intent, not statement of fact.
>>the intention is not to breach Human Rights
>>the Courts should interpret with that in mind
They do. The intent of the Minister is relevant to the degree of culpability, however only the intent of Parliament is relevant to deciding what the law actually is. Ministers are not agents of Parliament.
>>or that the minister is a lying toerag
Or he's just wrong. Losing in court doesn't automatically mean you're criminally culpable of intentionally disregarding the law (which is what lying would amount to).
 Secondary legislation always exists under the authority of primary legislation from Parliament.
 If it is absolutely clear that Parliament sees an incompatibility and legislates anyway then the conflicting statute can be considered implicitly repealed. That's an anti-pattern however.