|
10 Pence Short
27,632 posts
86 months
|
Maybe the OP should spill the beans about which act it is? 
|
|
|
mrmr96
11,958 posts
73 months
|
10 Pence Short said: Maybe the OP should spill the beans about which act it is? +1 I suspect he's misled the legal beagles on this thread through a sloppy translation of the actual statue into the nonsense one he posted. (He might not of course, but knowing which law he's on about will help, so we can see the ACTUAL WORDING.)
|
|
|
Somewhatfoolish
Original Poster
3,627 posts
55 months
|
Ok I will post it, but you have to promise not to quote it so I can remove it later  (2) An exclusion order shall not be made in respect of a person who, when the offence occurred — (a) was ordinarily resident in the Island; (b) was an Isle of Man worker within the meaning of the Control of Employment Act 1975; or (c) had a child, parent, spouse or civil partner ordinarily resident in the Island.
|
|
|
Jobbo
7,235 posts
133 months
|
Doesn't appear to be wrongly transcribed, but I still disagree with your own legal advice. Is there something in the context which would indicate that it should be A and B or C rather than A or B or C? Effectively you're implying a word which isn't present, so the question is: which one.
ETA: and even if you did imply 'and' after (a), you'd still have an ambiguity as to whether it meant "(a) and (b)" or "just (c)", or "(a) and (b)" or "(a) and (c)"
|
|
|
10 Pence Short
27,632 posts
86 months
|
Somewhatfoolish said: IOM legislation If I have the right Act, I think you have missed out an 'or' after the first clause and your lawyer is wrong if he believes it is 'and', I would say. http://www.judgments.im/content/J861.htmIOM legislation tends to include an explicit 'Or' or 'And' in clause lists to prevent the confusion you have encountered.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Jobbo
7,235 posts
133 months
|
10 Pence Short said: That case is on the old wording- it was amended in 2011 and the 'or' has been omitted. I was trying to find the previous wording so thanks for the link. The amendment to the legislation was only to add in civil partnerships so there should not have been any reason to change the interpretation, but omitting a word is enough for lawyers to argue about...
|
|
|
Somewhatfoolish
Original Poster
3,627 posts
55 months
|
Interesting. I quoted from an updated version of the act.
Indeed it looks like the result of that case would resolve the matter.
|
|
|
10 Pence Short
27,632 posts
86 months
|
Jobbo said: That case is on the old wording- it was amended in 2011 and the 'or' has been omitted. I was trying to find the previous wording so thanks for the link.
The amendment to the legislation was only to add in civil partnerships so there should not have been any reason to change the interpretation, but omitting a word is enough for lawyers to argue about... In which case, I don't see anything in the change that would support the notion of there being a change from 'or' of the original to 'and' in the revised version. I would argue the removal has no effect on the meaning of the legislation (other than to add potential for confusion...).
|
|
|
Somewhatfoolish
Original Poster
3,627 posts
55 months
|
The current act is at: http://www.legislation.gov.im/cms/images/LEGISLATI...You will also note that it has changed from at the time of sentencing to the at the time of the offence yet oddly that change seems to have come in at the time of the civil partnership stuff.
|
|
|
10 Pence Short
27,632 posts
86 months
|
Somewhatfoolish said: The current act is at: http://www.legislation.gov.im/cms/images/LEGISLATI...You will also note that it has changed from at the time of sentencing to the at the time of the offence yet oddly that change seems to have come in at the time of the civil partnership stuff. If you look at s2(1)(a) and (b), the word 'and' is used in the list of clauses. At the end of s2(1)(b), there is an 'or'. S2(2)(a) seems to be an anomaly when looked at alongside the other clauses mentioned, as it has neither 'and' nor 'or'. Unless there's some specific legislative discussion somewhere accounting for a change in meaning for s2(2), I can't think of an explanation other than a drafting omission.
|
|
|
jazzyjeff
3,504 posts
128 months
|
In legal drafting, there's no requirement to insert an 'or' at the end of each alternate.
So in the OP's case, qualification will be either a, or b, or c independently of each other (or any combination).
|
|
|
Ms Demeanor
657 posts
44 months
|
Somewhatfoolish said: Assume a law says this:
A person shall not wibble, unless-
(a) They dribble
(b) They eat shredded wheat; or
(c) They have only one eye.
Is simply having one eye enough to permit a person to wibble? Or is it enough that they dribble? Or must the one who wants to wibble dribble, but they must also either eat shredded wheat or have one eye.
This is for a real reason but I have anonymised the law for privacy reasons.
Please state whether you have any expertise/experience or not and your confidence level.
It's quiet today zzzzzzzz- Question 1 yes Question 2 yes Question 3 No (a)They dribble would need the word "and" after it...If so the requirement for one eye is not necessary in addition to the first two (due to the word "or".. I am a stonking expert in the laws of wibbling and dribbling but have no confidence whatsoever in my answers unless you tell me exactly what the real section says....
|
|
|
Ms Demeanor
657 posts
44 months
|
Sorry i never read the full thread before I join in and I did not realise you has posted the act . Doh Im slow...
|
|
|
Mojooo
7,303 posts
49 months
|
Its quite clearly A or B or C for an excluion order not to be made.
They are giving 3 different issues for the person to use in order not to be excluded.
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,229 posts
32 months
|
Anyway, can we now please have the next non problem to wibble on about?
|
|
|
streaky
18,246 posts
118 months
|
Mr Loophole claimed in court that his client was not wibbling, dribbling, eating shredded wheat or being possessed of a single eye. He was in fact, at the time, snivelling whilst simultaneously snorting Coco Pops up all three nostrils.
Streaky
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,229 posts
32 months
|
These days, he's Sir Egregious Loophole QC. Let the good times roll!
|
|
|
streaky
18,246 posts
118 months
|
Breadvan72 said: These days, he's Sir Egregious Loophole QC. Let the good times roll! Ooh! Do I detect a touch of Iago there? Streaky Othello, Act 3, scene 3 for the less-learned
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,229 posts
32 months
|
Not me! I adopt a Groucho Marx approach to such clubs! Still, any reference to Othello is a good reference. Did you see the fabulous BBC Henry IVs and V on telly recently? Worth ten years of licence fee in one go.
|
|
|
mph1977
4,810 posts
37 months
|
7db said: You can wibble if you meet any of the three requirements individually or any combination of them.
There's usually an exemption for Police purposes as well. So Dibble can wibble. exactly this is rather like the argument put across by the incompetents in the ambulance service that RRVs are illegal because they aren't 'an ambulance' , despite all relevant legislation allowing ' vehicles used for ambulance purposes' ...
|
|
