Interpretation

[Watkin Simon]

> From: Donald ramsbottom [mailto:donald@ramsbottom.co.uk]
> Sent: 19 November 2002 07:01
> 
> ">> it's what RIPA says then that's what you should do. And 
> > >frankly I could
> > >care less about what the HO think is in RIPA - it's what the 
> > >Courts think
> > >that matters. Especially if your intention is to provide a 
> > >list of what's
> > >included. in RIPA.
> 
> >Would you rather Tom, Dick and Harriet and M'lud go 
> thrashing about and make
> >bizarre rulings or would you rather they had some idea about 
> what's what in
> >terms of a,b,c?"
> 
> Simon I would remind you that opinions of Home Office 
> Officials are not a
> source of Law to which a Judge may refer. If he did so it 
> would be quite
> properly appealable.

Thanks, but I have no need for such a reminder. 

> At a stretch the court MAY look at Hansard to see what 
> PARLIAMENT intended,
> they cannot look at Civil Servants' interpretations of what Parliament
> said, other than in the normal course of a Plaint.

Yes.

> If the HO believes
> otherwise

No.

> may I suggest a quick refresher on sources of Law 
> from any Law
> school, probably first or second lecture.

Look.  We can have a discussion about how practitioners might use and
interpret the legislation.  That's a discussion about interpretation.  Or we
can stop.

Simon Watkin


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are private and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error please return it to the address 
it came from telling them it is not for you and then delete it from your system.

This email message has been swept for computer viruses.

**********************************************************************