A
B
by section 17(2) of the Interpretation Act, 1978, which
provides so far as is material:
"Where an Act repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification, a previous enactment then, unless the contrary intention appears
(b)
in so far as any ... thing done under the enactment so repealed could have been
done under the provision re-enacted, it shall have effect as if .. done under that provision."
...
C
D
لبا
E
F
G
Section 7 of the FOA is re-enacted with modifications
by section 9 of the Act of 1989 and accordingly in our view
the committal of 1 June, 1987 now has effect as a "thing
done" under section 9 of the Act of 1989. We shall return
to the meaning and effect of section 11.
We turn to Mr. Thomas's second point of reference,
that is to say, the inherent jurisdiction of a court to
prevent an abuse of process. We use this expression "a
court" because there are two courts to be considered, that
is to say, the court of committal and this court. We take
first the court of committal. It has in recent years and
on many occasions, been decided, or (more often) assumed or
conceded in this court that magistrates who hold domestic
committal proceedings are invested with inherent
jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of the process of
committal.
Whether the decisions, assumptions and
concessions are correct was not a question argued before
us, but it was assumed by all parties that they are
correct.
There may be a question to be resolved, but this
H
12
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.