RIPA & IOCA 1985

[Q G Campbell]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald ramsbottom [mailto:donald@ramsbottom.co.uk]
> Sent: 28 February 2001 06:51
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: RIPA & IOCA 1985
>=20
>=20
> At 10:12 AM 2/27/01 +0000, you wrote:
> >In article <U8OotcA9Gnm6EwRo@linx-regul.demon.co.uk>, Roland Perry
> ><roland@linx.net> writes
[snip]
> >Here is the answer I have now received:
> >
> >"Some time ago you asked for an explanation for why sections 11(1)
> >and 11(2) of IOCA had not been repealed.  These sections changed the
> >wording in the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the Post Office Act
> >1953.
> >
> >"The IOCA wording was replaced with new wording by schedule 4 of
RIPA.
> >Hence the IOCA sections did not need to be repealed in schedule 5.
>=20
>=20
> If the wording was superfluous, why not repeal it with the=20
> rest of the Act? It just looks like a blooper to me.
>=20
> Then there is the reference in S:17 (2) (a) to S:1 IOCA, which  was
very
> definitely repealed by RIPA.
>=20
> It is a bit messy.
[snip]

It appears that the fault is in the wording of the HO reply rather than
in RIPA. If RIPA had replaced all that the IOCA amendments did then IOCA
could have been repealed in its entirety. But RIPA does *not* do that in
spite of what the HO spokesman says.

IANAL but the situation as I now understand it is:

IOCA s.11(1) and IOCA Schedule 2 together amend the Telecommunications
Act 1984. They replace the *whole* of s.45 of this Act.

The consequential amendments in Schedule 4 of RIPA only replace
sub-sections 2 and sub-sections 3 of s.45 as amended by IOCA s.11(2).
Thus the latter, along with IOCA Schedule 2, must continue to stand to
give effect to the rest of s.45 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.

IOCA s.11(2) amends the Post Office Act 1953. It replaces *part* of s.58
of this Act.
=20
The consequential amendments in Schedule 4 of RIPA just adds some
wording to the changes made previously by IOCA s.11(2) so the latter
must continue to stand as well in order to give effect to s.58 of the
Post Office Act 1953 as it stood post-IOCA.

As far as I can understand the thrust of the RIPA amendments to these
two Acts they appear to be further examples of the need to cover the
situation where there were any outstanding IOCA warrants after RIPA came
into force.

Question for the lawyers (relatd to the above):

  If Act "A" is amended by Act "B" to make amended Act "AB", what
happens
  if Act "B" is later repealed? Does Act "AB" revert back to plain
  Act "A" again?

  If Act "C" comes along and in turn amends Act "AB" (in those parts
  previously changed by Act "B"), what happens to Act "AB" if Act "B"
  is also repealed in its entirety by Act "C"?

  =20
Quentin
--
PHONE: +44 191 222 8209    Computing Service, University of Newcastle
FAX:   +44 191 222 8765    Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, NE1 7RU.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any opinions expressed above are mine. The University can get its own."
    =20