The Supreme Court has in recent times been less willing to have recourse to parliamentary debates.\u00a0 It is reaffirmed that the traditional view, that the words and intention of the statute should be interpreted from the statute itself. Where necessary, \u00a0the purpose of the statute is to be deduced from the statute itself.<\/p>\n
The courts have suggested that the complexity and difficulty with looking at ministerial statements to interpret legislation justify their exclusion. \u00a0The Supreme Court has mentioned the possibility of extensive recourse been had to with all debates relevant to a statutory provision in any litigation with a proliferation of expense and burden in terms of ascertaining what might or might not have been the intention of the member.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court has been of the opinion that Dail debates should be used sparingly if at all in relation to statutory interpretation.\u00a0 Although they have not gone as far as disclaiming the practice, it has been heavily criticised as an inefficient.\u00a0 Emphasis has been laid at the fact that the Oireachtas acts collectively and that the voice of individual members\u00a0 is not necessarily relevant.<\/p>\n
What is said in the cut and thrust of the debate may l be of limited relevance.\u00a0 It was also the consideration that the role of the courts under the Constitution is to interpret legislation while \u00a0the lawmakers role is to make it.<\/p>\n\n
\n <\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
General The courts must take judicial notice of all statutes.\u00a0 Statute law does not need to be proved as such. Statute law may be ambiguous.\u00a0 It may be ambiguous on its face or may be ambiguous as to how it applies to particular circumstances.\u00a0 If a statutory provision is ambiguous, it must first be interpreted […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[266],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6633"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6633"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6633\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19020,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6633\/revisions\/19020"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6633"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6633"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6633"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}