186
sion Acts", but it is intermittent, and fragmentary, and it is admitted that it is lamentably incomplete. I have it on the best authority that there are certain obstructionists in this matter who do all in their power to prevent even the Law Revision Commission from further using their pruning knife on the Statute Book. Therefore the sixteen or twenty volumes known as the "Statutes Revised ", although pub- lished "By authority", are no more than an edition of the statutes which give the results of (1) amending legislation generally, and (i) of the Statuto Law Revision Acts so far as they go, which is not every far.
But in dealing with the laws of a Colony, first, the bulk of legislation which has to be pruned is inconsiderable com- pared with the English Statute Book, and therefore the revision can be complete. Secondly, and consequently, the necessity for the sub-division of the Interpretation Ordin- ance, which follows that of the English Act, into the heads abovą indicated, does not exist, and there is no reason why the principles of interpretation which it lays down should not be applied by a Law Revision Ordinance to existing legislation, and thus uniformity throughout the whole of the laws can be obtained. A simple example will make this clear.
55
By section 34 of the existing Interpretation Ordinance it is provided that where an Ordinance "coufers a power, theu, unless the contrary intention appears, the power may be exercised from time to time us occasion requires". The object of this is to render unnecessary the words "from time to time
in future legislation, in connexion, for example, with the power to make rules under any Ordinance. Now, to show bow useless the Ordinance has been, owing to the fact probably that it is unsystematic, this simple principle is often forgotten. The provision applies to Ordinances passed after 1897, yet I open Volume 11 at random, and I find in the Rating Ordinance of 1901, the words “from time to time" used in section 39 and section 40, where they are clearly unnecessary,
The reason for limiting the rule to future legislation is hard to discover. It is a rule of common sense, and one probably which the Courts would have devised for them- selves.
The same remark applies to practically all the simple rules of construction. Therefore in this proposed Ordiu- ance I have made them general, and they will be acted on by means of general provisions embodied in a Law Revi- sion Ordinance which authorises the deletion of useless expressions from existing legislation, and which will in due course be presented to Council.
The new Ordinance is therefore the old one recast, the sections grouped in a way more convenient for reference, and new ones added, which are for the most part based on those I introduced in an Ordinance I prepared in Mauritius in connexion with a similar revision of the laws of that Colony. Its twofold objects will be fulfilled--the Judges and Magistrates will apply it with greater case in interpret- ing the laws the Law Officer's staff will act upon it to the lightening of their work, and thereby greatly facilitate the comprehension of the Council in legislating, and the public in understanding the legislation.
Two new principles which have been introduced which may be specially referred to :---
References to Imperial Acts in Colonial Ordinances (~. 15).—This is a most important provision which meets a difficulty often arising; e.g., references in existing legisla- tion, say, to the old Merchant Shipping Acts, are useless, but there is no power without such a section to refer to the corresponding sections of the Acts of 1894. I had to introduce a special Ordinance in Mauritius to deal with this case.
The effect of disallowance (s. 17).—Unless there is such a clause as this the consequences of disallowance, which are often very far-reaching, are little understood. This section was approved by the Secretary of State in the Mauritius Ordinance.
F. T. PIGGOTT, Chief Justice,
9th March, 1911.
..
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.