"Pray the future will never need..." : comments [Dreams on the Bitface]

Incidentally, I'm not entirely sure that your contention:

The bill grants ministers the power to create, modify or strike down laws; and to introduce offenses carrying prison terms of up to two years.

. . . is accurate.

Provision under section 2(1) may not create a new offence that is punishable,
or increase the penalty for an existing offence so that it is punishable—
(a) on indictment, with imprisonment for a term exceeding two years; or[ blah]

could be read like that, but could equally mean that no new punishable offence can be created, and furthermore maximum sentences for existing offences can only be increased across those lines under some circumstances.

Someone who understands interpretation of laws could tell us which. I'm sure it's completely clear if you understand these things.

[parent entry] [link] [reply]

I see what you're getting at, but I read it as:


((may not create a new offence) OR (increase the penalty for an existing offence)) so that it is punishable...

These lawyers need a programming language.

Anyway, inasmuch as there is such thing as the UK blogosphere, it is alight with discussion of this; or, to put that another way, I have mainly been focussing my attention on discussion about it recently. And the general understanding of that clause seems to be as I described it. But IANAL, of course, and quite possibly, neither is anyone else whose posts I've read.

But above all (and this applies to your next comment, too): if the bill is enacted, it will be possible for ministers to modify that act (that legal programming language will have to support recursion, obviously). So any limitations and safeguards written into the bill have to be considered as irrelevant for our democratic safety.

[link] [parent] [reply]

As far as I can tell, the rules covering which way that clause would be interpreted are clear and simple if you understand them. I don't, but as I understand it it's not likely to be legally ambiguous.

As for the second point, it could be argued (although remember that IANAL) that under 3 (2) (d) it would be prohibited as removing necessary protection, and under 3 (2) (e) as removing the right of legislators to determine the powers of ministers. In any case, such a move would be liable (under the law as it stood at the point of passage) to be rejected by Parliamentary motion.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Fair points all, and you have obviously considered this with a clearer head than I. Do you think I should modify (or take down) my "Revolution!" post, then?

What do you think about the fact that on its face, no existing Act is beyond the reach of the new bill? Some commentators are saying that "constitutional" laws like the Bill of Rights and of course the Human Rights Act should be explicitly named on this bill as being outwith its influence.

This is all, of course, part of the problem with not having a written constitution.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Well, I don't like the bill, and in particular the fact that its scope is so wide is very unwise. Listing bills as constitutional might work, but arguably they've already tried with the bar on removing "essential safeguards". That dumps it into the judiciary's hands, and while it's a damn sight better than nothing, I don't see it as an adequate substitute for just not passing the thing.

Written constitution. Yes. Seems like a very good idea, overall.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1 1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Dreams on the Bitface

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

September