Look, I don’t know what the implications of this Bill are. I’m a layperson – as are most others. Many parts seem to include perfectly reasonable statements and clarifications. There may well be ambiguities and grey areas in the law as it stands which require attention and clarification. However, there are references to other documents and we hear mention of the EU, the UK, the UK Justice Department, Human Rights and so on.
Previously of seemingly insufficient consequence to demand interpretation – why has it been introduced at this point? To me it seems as if we are tidying things up so that they dovetail into international laws. Just an opinion. But you know what they say about what is in the detail. It makes sense to request an explanation of this document. Yes, it could be argued that the judiciary has no problem with the presentation. However, laws affect us and so we need to know what it’s all about as well. Should we have queries at a later stage we could well be told that there was a consultation period. We had our chance to register concerns.
The definition of interpret is to explain the meaning of something. But it can also be defined as: to construe or understand in a particular way: to interpret a reply as favorable.
The Interpretation Bill and Legislation Consultation is simply not clear to me. How about you? As always – please leave comments if you can assist.
You can also leave comments on the consultations site: