ERRORS IN LAW

Taranaki Daily News, 9 August 1930, Page 7

ERRORS IN LAW

UNSKILFUL DRAFTSMANSHIP. PROBLEMS FOR THE COURTS. flic interesting question, of what the position is when the law ia found to Contain an obvious mistake in draftsmanship is raised in a judgment recently given by the Court of Appeal in a rating case. Are Courts bound by the ob[Vious error or may they ignore or correct it? . . The action was one taken against the Marlborough County Council to preyent it from levying rates on the newly adopted unimproved value system until the Valuer-General had supplied a new roll. Mr. Justice Ostler, who dissented from th'e majority of the Court, claimed that the majority had erred in assuming that - a section of an Act of Parliament had been enacted by mistake. “That is rn assumption which the Courts cannct .make,” he said. He proceeded to quote the following dictum of. Lord Halsbury: “That, in fact,, the language of an Act of Parliament may be founded on some mistake, and that words may be clumsily used, I do not deny. But I do. not think it is competent to any • Court to proceed upon the assumption that the Lcgisla; Jure has made a “mistake. • .“Whatever -the real fact may. be, I think a Court of Taw is bound to proceed upon the assumption that the Legislature is an ideal person that docs not make mistakes. It must be assumed chat it has intended what it has said, and I think any other view of the mode in which one must approach the interpretation of a statute would give auth; OTity for' an ‘interpretation of the language of an Act. of Parliament whech ■yvould be attended with the most serious • oonsequences.” ■- In ’ Mr. Justice Ostler’s opinion, the object of the section in question was so plaintand the language used to exprees that object so intractable, that it could not be ignored or brushed aside upon the groiind that the Lcgisuature enacted it bv mistake. . . ■ . * Quite another view was expressed, by Mr. Justice Reed. “It is perfectly obvious thafHhe whole trouble is faulty draftriianship,”-he said. “This phase c-f the question, ’ therefore, resolves itself into whether or not, the object of the statute being obvious, it should, through faulty draftsmanship, fail of its intended effect.’ ' . * “The rule on the subject .s thus laid down by the'Privy Council'in Salmon v. Duncombe. ‘lt is, however, a very eerious .matter to hold that- when Tie main object of a statute is clear, it shall be reduced to a nullity by the draftsman’s unskilfulness or ignorance of law. It may be necessary for a Court of justice to come : to such &. conclusion, but it had been held that nothing can justify it except necessity or the absolute intractability of the language used.’” In His Honour’s view, the language in this particular case was not ,n--fractablc. ■ ', Mr. Justice Herdman agreed that there had been an error in draftsmanship, b it that that should not'stand in the way of the purpose of the Act “The present trouble has, I think, been caused by the failure of the draftsman, when consolidating the rating statutes in the year 1925, to repeal or modify section 47,” he said. “But this omission will not stand in the way of an interpretation of the Statute which accords, wi.h reason if its plain meaning -and intention are beyond" question. In my judgment the main object of this' legislation js clear, and. that being so, the Court w.JI not allow.it to be reduced to a nullity by a draftsman’s iinskilfulness.”