Page 2195 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

THEN IT IS LESS LIKELY TO HAVE THE PROTECTION OF THE CROWN. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT TT IS POSSIBLE THAT A STATUTE WILL NOT BIND THE PERSON OF THE CROWN BUT MAY STILL BIND THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENT BODIES WHICH FALL WITHIN THE SHIELD OF THE CROWN. THE COURT SUGGESTED THAT ACTS PASSED PRIOR TO THEIR DECISION IN BROPHO MAY BE INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY TO ACTS PASSED AFTER THE DECISION.

THE EFFECT OF THE DECISION IS THAT THERE IS NO WAY OF KNOWING FOR SURE WHETHER A PARTICULAR ACT WILL BIND THE CROWN AT COMMON LAW. 1N OTHER WORDS, A GOVERNMENT CANNOT REMAIN SILENT ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CROWN IS BOUND BY A STATUTE AND THEN EXPECT A COURT TO HOLD THAT TT IS NOT BOUND.

MADAM SPEAKER, THE GOVERNMENT BELIEVES THAT IT IS BEST TO REMOVE THE UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMON LAW PRESUMPTION ON BINDING THE CROWN AND THIS BILL TOGETHER WITH THE ACTS REVISION (POSITION OF CROWN) BILL ARE DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE THIS.

IN DEVELOPING THE GOVERNMENTS POLICY ON THIS ISSUE TT WAS NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THREE QUESTIONS:

FIRST OF ALL, THE GOVERNMENT HAD TO CONSIDER WHETHER AS A GENERAL POLICY THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF THE TERRTTORY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE BOUND BY LEGISLATION.

2195

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .