PRESUMPTIONS WHILE DOING LEGAL INTERPRETATION

PRESUMPTIONS IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Unless the statute contains express words to the contrary it is assumed that the

following presumptions of statutory interpretation apply, each of which may be

rebutted by contrary evidence.

Presumptions represent the accepted judicial view of a range of circumstances that have been predetermined to be the way in which every manifestation of those circumstances will be viewed, until any evidence to the contrary is produced. These tend to arise from theoretical and practical principles of the law.

  1. A statute does not alter the existing common law. If a statute is capable of two interpretations, one involving alteration of the common law and the other one not, the latter interpretation is to be preferred.
  2. If a statute deprives a person of his property, say by nationalization, he is to be compensated for its value.
  3. A statute is not intended to deprive a person of his liberty. If it does so, clear words must be used. This is relevant in legislation covering, for example, mental health and immigration.
  4. A statute does not have retrospective effect to a date earlier than its becoming law.
  5. A statute generally has effect only in the country enacted. However a statute does not run counter to international law and should be interpreted so as to give effect to international obligations.
  6. A statute cannot impose criminal liability without proof of guilty intention. Many modern statutes rebut this presumption by imposing strict liability; for e.g. dangerous driving.
  7. A statute does not repeal other statutes. Any point on which the statute leaves a gap or omission is outside the scope of the statute.