Shorts notes of Ananda Ranawake  Stakeholder’s consensus.

Legislative Drafting and Statutory  Government policies.

Interpretation.  Must be in plain language and no
Nature and Classification of Legislation excess words.
Importance.  Lord Thring, legislative drafting is to
 Legislation is the primary source of be treated as an art.
law in civil law states.  Science consistency with policies, the
 Trade Commerce Health, etc. Affairs Constitution and human rights,
of government, banks, etc. Preparatory Challenges.
 The age of common law is over and  Understand bilateral, multilateral and
now it is age of statutes. plurilateral.
Nature.  Preservation, Interpretation.
 Legislation is the end product of the Understanding, Declaration.
legislative process. Compositional Challenges,
 Attorney General vs. Sepala  Use a good legislative design to
Ekanayake. enhance clarity and understanding.
 75 constitution. 13 (6) constitution no  Preliminary provisions long title, short
person shall be held guilty for act title, preamble, etc.
omission that is not an offence at time  Substantive administrative provisions.
except under international law.  Final miscellaneous provisions.
 Queen vs. Liyanage. Legislation is to  Offences.
be generally applied, not ad hoc. Ad  Better to have textual than
hominem or ex post facto. referential.
Classification.  Consistent with the delegated power.
 Primary and subordinate legislation  Not ultra vires the principal Act.
 Regulations, proclamations, Anatomy of a Statute
emergency regulations, etc. (1) Long Title, general purpose of the Act.
 Powell vs. May procedural substantive (2) Preamble, why it is being enacted.
ultra vires. Burrakur Coal v India, Devenish.
 Ran Banda vs. River Valley “Unqualified” guide ascertaining
Development Board. Parliament intention.”
Federal and State legislation (3) Short Title, Lord Diplock not be used
 Commonwealth vs. Tasmania Marginal Note, Rex v Mantila, In Sri Lanka
Central and devolved legislation the marginal note are debated,
 13th Amendment. (4) Proviso, Ismale Lebbe v Jayawardena,
 Provincial Council Act 1986. (5) Headings, Thornton “A heading is a label
Classification. or a sign post but no more.”
(6) Interpretation Clauses, Restrictive
 By subject matter, chronologically,
definition, Browns vs. Anderson.
and alphabetically etc.
(7) Punctuation Marks, Marshal v
Challenges in Drafting.
Cottingham “punctuation is normally an
Legislation Drafting.
aid and no more.”
1
(8) Schedule, subsidiary to the main  What remedy did Parliament resort
provisions. to What was the true reason for the
Dualist and Monist. remedy, Rana vs. Kiribindu,
Primary Rules, Literal Rule,  Smith vs. Hughes, prostitutes can
 The intention of ordinary and literal beat at street or in balconies,
meaning.  Dorothy Silva vs. Inspector of Police
 Sussex Peerage case. any premises.
 Felix vs. Thomas ‘any place is not  gives effect to the intention of
‘any public place.’ Parliament It promotes the
 Stassen Export vs. Brookebond practicality of the law,
Limited,  violates the doctrine of separation of
 Somawathie vs. Weerasinghe, powers as intention of the legislature
 Ebrahim vs. Minister of the Interior, might be construed wrongly,
South African Citizenship. Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat.
 Promotes consistency neutrality of  It is better for a thing to have effect
the courts. than to be made void).
 Separation of power, judges from  Trinidad Cement Company vs.
being creative. Attorney General, Manchester
 Lead to absurdities or Shipping Company vs. Manchester
inconveniences. Racecourse Company,
Golden Rule,  Nandasena vs. Senanayake, Lands
 Corocraft Limited vs. Pan American Sri Lanka Insurance vs. Ranasinghe,
Airways, the literal rule is disallowed repealed law,
if it results in absurdities, Noscitur A Sociis.
 Becke vs. Smith, language varied to  (A meaning of a word can be
avoid the inconvenience of gathered from its context).
absurdity,  Attorney General vs. Prince Earnest
 Lee vs. Knapp the law was to stop a Augustus of Hanover.
the vehicle after a road traffic  Gunasinghe vs. De Silva, biting was
accident, cutting, Bengali vs. Bell. Punch
 It addresses absurdities, protects, Company, floor, passage
practicality and creates public trust  Doctor Devendra vs. State of
 Violates the doctrine of separation of Gujarat, dispensary Shop,
powers as judges depend on the Ejusdem Generis Principle
opinion of judges that one judgment  Shirani Bandaranaike, Sohli Captain
leads to another. vs. Commissioner of Inland Revenue,
Mischief Rule. ‘cosmetics, perfume, hair dressing,
 Haydon’s case, What was the  Wood vs. Metropolitan Police
common law prior enacting of the Commission ‘any gun, pistol, hanger,
statute, cut glass,
 What was the mischief that the
common law didn’t provide for,
2
 Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius. 5. Delgatus Non Potest Delegare.
 R vs. Secretary of State for the Home 6. Volenti Non Fit Injuria.
Department, the word parent meant 7. Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant.
the mother of an illegitimate child, 8. Necessity knows no law.
implicitly excluding the father. 9. Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia.
Purposive Rule. 10. Expressio Unis Est Exclusion Alterius.
 Purpose of the Act passed by the 11. A person alleging his own
Parliament. wrongdoing is not to be heard.
 Pepper vs. Hart Hansard was Income mandatory or directory.
Tax Act  Most = mandatory.
 Sriyani Silva vs. Iddamalgoda, 17 and  Shall = directory.
126 (2) constitution,  Liverpool Borough Bank vs. Turner,
 Liyanage vs. Gampaha Urban Council,  court must Discover Parliament’s
purpose of the Act, intention.
 Sriyani Silva vs. Iddamalgoda,  Nikisimane vs. Santam, Insurance
Dynamic Rule.  French Vs. Guyney,
 development of the golden rule, to  Shall = May.
interpret the Constitution, human  Rai Wimal Krishna vs. State of Bihar.
rights instruments and international Public notice mandatory & Way to
treaties, publication was directory.
 Brown vs. Board of Education, Queen  Attorney General vs. Samantha
vs. Liyanage, Singrasa. Sampath,
 Attorney General vs. Sepala  Wanasundara J Retuses to hold
Ekanayake, mandatory punishment of 7 Year
 Noble Resources International vs. and confined 2 year decided by CA.
Hon Ranjith Sigambalapiliya, External Aids to Statutory.
Judicial or Free Theory.  Devenish informed interpretation.
 creative role of the judge.  Parliamentary material.
subjective theory.  Judicial materials.
 drawing a distinction between  International treaties.
language and thought and ideas,  Historical Background Agni Vs.
value coherent theory. Gallahar.
 spirit and the words of the judicial  Hansard reports.
interpretation,  Attorney General vs. Livera, Ellawala
objective theory, vs. Wijesundara, historical context
Act is an independent document would be of aid Hansards.
1. An act of God causes legal injury to  Millar vs. Tailor, Knuller vs. Director
no one. of Public Prosecutions, homosexual
2. Audi alteram partem Equal  Beswick vs. Beswick, Pepper vs. Hart
opportunity.  An ambiguity in language or
3. Nemo Judex in Sua Causa. absurdity arising from the literal
4. Res judicata (double jeopardy).
3
 interpretation of language must  6 (1) Interpretation Ordinance
prevail, repealing completely,
 parliamentary material must  6 (2) repeal will not take effect until
manifest the mischief sought to be the substituted provision comes into
remedied or legislative intent, effect,
 Minister’s second reading speech  6 (3) Interpretation Ordinance unless
which restricts the ambit of the expressly provided for, repeals not
application. affect a former written law,
finality clauses.  15 Interpretation Ordinance any
 final and conclusive Interpretation subsidiary legislation made under a
Ordinance Section 22, repealed law will remain under,
 The decision is ex facie outside the  16 Reference made to any repealed
powers conferred. law will be deemed as made to the
 Improper procedure was adopted. new law,
 Violation of natural justice is  Abbot vs. Minister of Lands mere right
resultant. remand under, advantage is not right
 Ladamutthupillai vs. Attorney acquired.
General,  Stowers vs. Darnell, conviction on old
 James vs. Paddy Board of Review , act not valid,
Wijewardena vs. Peoples Bank, Retrospective,
 statutory authorities have made  75 constitution Parliament has the
orders outside their jurisdiction. power to enact retrospective
 Shirani Bandaranaike’s 168 legislation,
constitution was given effect on the  13 (6) no person shall be held guilty
decision of Parliamentary Select for an act or omission which didn’t at
Committee being final and the time an offence nor a penalty
conclusive, more than that at the time of act
 Aubrey Norton, Attorney General of Retrospective legislation vested rights
Guyana, EC final and conclusive, Retroactive legislation existing rights,
 Lestrade vs. Speaker of House of  West vs. Gwyenne,
Assembly, Abeywickrama vs.  Young vs. Adams,
Pathirana,  De Mel vs. De Mel,
 Premachandra vs. Montigue  Subramaniam Chettiar vs. Hameed, if
Jayawickrama, the law is beneficial it would be
 Weeraratne Vs. Percy Colin Thome, accepted,
 Fernendo Vs. Gunawardana,  Sepal Ekanayake vs. Attorney
 Withnarachi V.s llukkumbura. General, retrospective law can be
Repeal and Revival. accepted in ratification of
 75 constitution only Parliament shall international hijacking.
have the power to make and
unmake laws,