DRAFTING
What should the opening clause of a contract have?
Parties names, addresses, occupation, date of contract and subject nature of contract
What is the first rule of interpretation to be applied when reading statute? List 2 cases.
Literal rule- if clear and unambigous give the ordinary meaning.
Sussex Pearage Case/Bayley v Daniel
Savarin v Williams (the primary meaning of the word applied with necessary modifications to make it consistent with the statutory context)
Ramsonahai v Duke ("to prosecute")
Felix v Thomas ("any place" v "any public place")
What is the Presumption of Constitutionality and which case express this?
If Parliament passes an Act it is presumed to be in conformity with the Constitution until the contrary is proven- Faultin v AG
What is the difference between generalibius specialia derogrant and generalia specialibus non derogrant?
the special provision overrides the general provision
general provisions do not derogate from specific provisions.
What is the legal principle arising from Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher?
Constitutions are sui generis (unique) instruments requiring a generous, purposeful interpretation (in a way that gives to individuals the full measure of their fundamental rights and freedoms) rather than strict legalism. It determined that "child" in a constitution includes illegitimate children when considering citizenship rights.
State the Intitulement/Heading for a Statutory Declaration
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
IN THE MATTER OF THE STATUTORY DECLARATIONS ACT CHAP 7:04
AND
IN THE MATTER OF A DECLARATION MADE BY ...
Describe the golden rule of interpretation and provide three cases to support.
Golden Rule- where the literal interpretation leads to an ambiguity, the words may be modified so as to avoid absurdity applying the common sense meaning of the word. (Grey v Pearson)
River Wear Commissioners v Andersons- the test is that the whole statute when read together must lead to an absurdity. Concerns ambiguity with the meaning of the words not its consequences. If the meaning of the words are clear, the consequences of their application are immaterial.
R v City of London- once the words are clear follow them...if unclear choose the more reasonable of the two interpretations.
Davis v R- statute "in the wrong manner and in the manner provided by an airport officer"... the court inserted "other than" before the word "and"
Alder George- "in the vicinity of a prohibited place" construed as including being in the prohibited place.
What does section 2 of the Constitute stipulate?
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law that is inconsistent with it shall be struck down and declared void to the extent of the inconsistency.
This requires that the words of the statute be interpreted in accordance with their meaning at the time of enactment.
If a legislation allows a police officer to wreck someone's car where it is illegally parked and in order to retain possession the person must pay a fine, can this be deemed as infringing the right to property?
No. See: Alleyne Forte v AG of TT- parking regulations were necessary for the safety and convenience of all road users and without a power to remove vehicles at once the object of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations would be stultified.
Cite the deponent's statement for a statutory declaration
I, (name), (job), of (address), in the ward of...in the island of Trinidad in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, DO SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE as follows:
What is the Interpretation principle arising from AG Reference No. 1 pf 1975?
Each word (in statute) must be given its ordinary meaning. If four words are employed here “aid, abet, counsel or procure, the probability is that there is a difference between each of the four words and if there were no such difference, Parliament would not be wasting time in using four words where two would do.
Can an Act override the fundamental rights laid down in the Constitution? If yes, where is this expressed?
Section 13 (1) of the Constitution express that an Act may override the fundamental rights laid down in the Constitution if it expressly states so within the Act and it is reasonably justifiable in a society that respects these rights
What is the latin term for associated words and explain what it means using a case
Noscitur a Sociis- the meaning of a word is clarified by the words it is associated.
Mills v Cooper ("gipsy" didn't mean race...applied to associated words "hawker" and "itinerant trader" to mean a nomad)
Abrahams v Cavey- ("indecent” applied to associated words "riotous" or "violent"
During the pandemic Parliament passed a law prohibiting persons from leaving their homes. Does this law violate the right to freedom of movement and can it be struck down for this reason?
Yes it violates the right but it cannot be struck down. The Parliament is allowed to pass laws that infringe rights in moments of emergencies as the public interest outweigh the individual right. See: Suraj and Others v AG of TT and R v Halliday.
Cite out the knowledge statement/statement of why for an affidavit
The facts herein/hereafter set out are true and correct and within my own personal knowledge except where stated to be on information in which case I verily believe the same to be true and correct.
Explain, using case law, the principle of retrospectivity.
In Re Athlumney the principle was laid down- Legislation is presumed not to have retrospective effect so as to impair existing rights or obligations, unless clear words indicate such an intention. It is fine to pass retrospective law that benefits. It is not fine to pass retroactive law that punishes unless it is clear.
In Carson v Carson the Matrimonial Act said that once adultery was condone it cannot be revived as a ground for divorce. Wife cheated before the act was passed and husband took her back. She cheated again after it was passed and husband was granted divorce as it would be wrong to retrospectively apply the act to the first cheating when it didn't exist yet.
How would you interpret this section of a legislation?
Any person, being a man, in any public way or public space, for any improper purpose, appears in a female attire; or being a woman, in any public way or public place, for any improper purpose, appears in a male attire commits an offence and is liable to a fine of one thousand dollars.
Case: McEwan v AG of Guyana (infringe constitutional right)
Literal Rule = Vague/ambiguity with the phase "Immoral Purpose"
Golden Rule= Common sense meaning of immoral purpose.
Purposive Rule= look at extrinsic aid to determine Parliament's intention when passing the act.
What does Ejusdem Generis mean and give me two cases that apply?
words of the same class give meaning to other words:
The Thames and Mercy Marine Insurance v Hamilton Fraser and Co. ("perils of the sea")
Brownsea Haven Properties v Poole Corp ("public processions, rejoicings or illuminations")
Wood v MPC (gun, pistol, hanger, cutlass, bludgeon, or other offensive weapon)
Two co-accused are convicted of the same offence of robbery under similar facts.
Accused A is sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment
Accused B is sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment
Both were involved in the same incident, with similar roles and no clear distinguishing aggravating factors.
Accused A argues that the disparity violates his constitutional right to equality before the law under the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. Advise.
See: Smith v LJ Williams/Persaud v R- Equal Application of the Law.
While sentencing judges have wide discretion, the principle of equal protection of the law under the Constitution requires that co-accused in similar circumstances should not receive grossly and unjustifiably different sentences.
Where disparity is manifest and unexplained, it may amount to a constitutional breach.
Cite the closing paragraph of a statutory declaration
And I make this declaration consciously believing the same to be true and according to the Statutory Declarations Act and I am aware if there is any statement in this declaration which is false in fact, which I know or believe to be false or do not believe to be true, I am liable to fine and imprisonment.
A statute states that “no person shall bring dogs, cats, or other animals into a restaurant.” A person brings a parrot.
Is this prohibited?
Applying ejusdem generis, “dogs” and “cats” are domestic pets. A parrot may fall within that category as a domestic pet, so it is likely included. Alternatively, if the court finds no clear genus, the general words “other animals” may be interpreted broadly to include all animals.
Explain the Akili Charles proportionality test?
1. Whether the objective of the Act is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of fundamental right?
2. Whether the law/act is rationally connected to the objective?
3. Whether a less invasive method could've been used?
4. Whether a fair balance is struck between the the rights of the individual and the interest of the public?
In Mullins v Collins it was expressed that where the offence used the word "knowingly" in subsection 1 but omitted it in subsection two, this omittal was interpreted to mean that he could be liable without knowledge. Which latin phrase did this interpretation apply?
Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius- to express one thing means to exclude the others.
Under the Sedition Act, it is an offence to publish statements that bring the Government into hatred or contempt.
A political activist states at a public meeting:
“This government is corrupt and unfit to lead—we must vote them out immediately.”
He is charged with sedition.
Determine whether the words actually fall within the definition of sedition.
If no- not guilty. Mere political criticism should not be stretched into “sedition”- right to express political view (section 4 (e) Constitution)
If yes, see- AG of TT v Maharaj. Saved law therefore immune from being struck down as unconstitutional.