True. Very little legislation can really be said to admit of only one meaning though. But as you say if it really does then it's unlikely anyone's going to be arguing about it: a judge is only going to make an explicit decision about what a statute means either if the point has been put in argument or (much less likely) it hasn't but they think it should have been.
Haws case is particularly interesting because the principle against retrospective legislation is a strong one, which the Divisional Court stuck to, but the CA went for a purposive approach, knowing as everyone did that the section in question was actually directly aimed at Haw.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: Part 2.
Date: 2006-05-31 01:46 pm (UTC)Very little legislation can really be said to admit of only one meaning though. But as you say if it really does then it's unlikely anyone's going to be arguing about it: a judge is only going to make an explicit decision about what a statute means either if the point has been put in argument or (much less likely) it hasn't but they think it should have been.
Haws case is particularly interesting because the principle against retrospective legislation is a strong one, which the Divisional Court stuck to, but the CA went for a purposive approach, knowing as everyone did that the section in question was actually directly aimed at Haw.