dls wrote:For every ten sentences each of us write, at least 8 will prove to have ambiguities when pushed.
There is even a statutory procedure which takes this a little further in Human Rights cases...
Your question would be better if legislation was never ambiguous. That will never happen, and the particular source of your current quizzicality is not the best example.
There are two readings...
The found meaning accords with common sense and justice, and the 'easier' reading would lead to absurdity.
Myself I would prefer a court to take the more sensible way ahead.
atticus wrote:What is anathema to us, is the OP's idea of a never ending loop of hopeless appeals.
There has to be an end, and the rules specify how that end is arrived at.
Smouldering Stoat wrote:Shirley one of the primary reasons the rule of law evolved was to deliver both certainty and finality to disputes. So an interpretation of the law which provided neither ought to be rejected, no?
Lord Dyson, in a speech entitled Time to call it a day: some reflections on finality and the law wrote:So any system of justice that is fair to all parties requires that a time should come when it is
time to call it a day. Thus the time should come when the losing party must accept an
adverse decision for better or worse. The successful party is entitled to nothing less. The
more generous the scope for challenging decisions by appeal or review, the greater the
chance of eliminating error. But successive proceedings involve delay and additional
expense. And the pall of uncertainty continues to hang over the parties until their disputes
have finally run their course and an unchallengeable decision emerges. Certainty, even if less
than perfect, has great value. At least the parties can get on with their lives knowing exactly
where they stand.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest