Page 34 - Interpretation Act News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

The Nationalist Party says parliament should not discuss and approve laws that are 'manifestly unconstitutional'

The proposed introduction of Article 13A of the Interpretation Act, which seeks to lay down parameters that distinguish administrative fines, which remain to be so considered, from those which, by reason of their severity, “may be interpreted as constituting a punishment of a criminal nature” leading to a criminal offence, has provoked some reaction. It seems that the main contention centres around the premise that the latter ‘stiff’ administrative fines should be solely imposed by courts of law and not by public authorities. The justification for this is that, according to the Maltes...

The Queen and Prince Philip (Titanic Belfast/ Flickr) The ultimate winners of the circus that’s arisen in response to Harry and Meghan’s interview with Oprah Winfrey are the creators of The Crown. If the writers of the Netflix drama feared they might eventually run out of material, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have just provided them with another few series’ worth of titillating content, containing all of the show’s favourite themes – marital strife, sibling rivalry and the impossibility of trying to carve out a normal family life within ‘the firm’.  Yet, despite its name, t...

“Is it true to say multiple claims might have been presented by one person?” +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ How can that be when each legally resident person of working age has a specific or unique National Insurance number as his or her only identifier for contributions or benefits-claiming purposes? A contributor might be able to work for more than one employer but can identify only one employer to make any benefit claim. Just like a taxpayer cannot claim more than one set of allowances even if employed different capacities or in receipt of different streams of remu...

March 3, 2021 Opposition Senator Caswell Franklyn on Tuesday blasted the penalties being imposed by the court on violators of the COVID-19 directives, declaring that although he is not a lawyer, the directives are “ill-conceived and contrary to law”. Yet, despite suggesting a flaw that potentially invalidates the rules, he insisted that the directives are the law and must be obeyed “until such time as they are revoked or struck down by a court of law”. The Emergency Management (COVID-19) (Curfew) (No. 4) directives impose a fine of $50,000 or one-year imprisonment, or both, ...