DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3612--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: guest17
Date: August 21, 2023, 1:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have real fears that instead of the mentioned golden rule
Counsel for TfL will concentrate on a purposive approach to
statutory interpretation.
If the issue at hand boils down to what Parliament intended, a
purposive approach will be a real threat to the Tribunal's
defence.
Against that, any decision for using cameras for bay enforcement
would have wider ramifications in terms of CCTV use.
If the Tribunl approached the case on the concept of illegality
then the Supreme Court judgements in Patel v Mirza and Stoffel v
Henderson would become relevant.
Mike
#Post#: 3736--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 22, 2023, 7:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Except that as Mr Chan puts it, a purposive approach supports
the tribunal's interpretation.
#Post#: 3742--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: August 23, 2023, 2:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> Except that as Mr Chan puts it, a purposive approach supports
the tribunal's interpretation.
>
--- End Quote ---
That depends on what purpose is being approached.
If it is believed that the purpose of restricting use of cameras
where a CEO could do the job, fine.
However if it is believed that the purpose of allowing cameras
on Red Routes is enforce No Stopping, anywhere on the route, the
wording of Reg 11 would mean little.
#Post#: 3747--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 23, 2023, 4:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If it's considered that the 2007 and 2022 Regs intentionally
distinguish between the use of CCTV in these circumsyances then
I find it interesting that there's no reference to this in
either the Explanatory Note or Explanatory Memorandum
accompanying the SI.
#Post#: 3756--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: August 23, 2023, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As explanatory notes, memoranda or even section headings do not
form part of the legislation, and much like what you might or
might not find interesting, have no bearing on statutory
interpretation.
#Post#: 3805--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 24, 2023, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No-one is suggesting that the memorandum etc. gives a legal
interpretation, that's a matter for the courts. But what cannot
be dismissed at a stroke is that they clearly give an indication
of rationale, which is my point. If one looks at the other
elements they all seem to have been ported across without change
or the reason behind the change explained, not the legal
interpretation but the department's reason for seeking to make
the change.
I mention this only because weight is being placed on the
revised wording and revisions normally have a purpose, but in
this case unexplained.
The court will decide and let's hope their decision is clear-cut
and prompt.
#Post#: 3808--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: August 24, 2023, 11:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> But what cannot be dismissed at a stroke is that they clearly
give an indication of rationale, which is my point.
>
--- End Quote ---
Are they an admissible aid to construction?
#Post#: 3819--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: August 24, 2023, 2:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Southpaw82 link ---
>
> [quote author=H C Andersen link=topic=326.msg3805#msg3805
date=1692892432]
> But what cannot be dismissed at a stroke is that they clearly
give an indication of rationale, which is my point.
>
--- End Quote ---
Are they an admissible aid to construction?
[/quote]
I'm sure that I have seen them referred to in HC cases but would
need to go hunting to find where and how.
A little academic in this case as the notes give no rational or
even mention the changes.
#Post#: 3853--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 25, 2023, 8:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Southpaw82 link ---
>
> [quote author=H C Andersen link=topic=326.msg3805#msg3805
date=1692892432]
> But what cannot be dismissed at a stroke is that they clearly
give an indication of rationale, which is my point.
>
--- End Quote ---
Are they an admissible aid to construction?
[/quote]
My understanding is that they are, if there were any authorities
against that I'm sure TFL's KC would have pointed it out at the
review hearing.
#Post#: 4221--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 31, 2023, 3:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I cannot miss the Khan v Chan show. ;)
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page