 The context of the use of the word ‘vehicle’ in Garner v Burr requires anyone addressing the problem in the case to make evaluative judgments, just to decide whether the word applied to the chicken coop on wheels. The context of use is a criminal prohibition imposed for a presumably good public purpose of protecting road surfaces. To determine in that context whether the word ‘vehicle’ extends to a chicken coop on wheels, you need to address (and to resolve any tension between) the two principles mentioned above: that the purposes for which Parliament passed the statute should be pursued, and that criminal liability should not be extended to conduct that has not been unequivocally prohibited. Because of that context, the question of the meaning and application of the language of the statute cannot be answered without making judgments on normative questions as to how those principles are to be respected. The role of evaluative considerations in the application of ordinary descriptive terms like ‘vehicle’ raises a challenge for any thorough-going scepticism about value: the challenge is to decide whether to adopt a thorough-going scepticism about the meaning and application of descriptive language, which seems to follow from general scepticism concerning value (see Chiassoni 2019 for a sustained defence of such a form of scepticism, concluding that ‘The province of proper and practical legal interpretation“the province of judicial and juristic interpretation”is, properly speaking, a province without truth.’ (at 46)).