” Maxwell in his book on ‘Interpretation of Statutes’ explained the principle by saying : “But the general word which follows particular and specific words of the same nature as itself takes its meaning from them, and is presumed to NRI Legal services be restricted to the same genus as those words . The proper issue for the jury on the question of propensity in a case such as Ngyuen and the present appeal is whether they are sure that the propensity has been proved.
Unless there is a genus or category, there is no room for the application of the ejusdem generis doctrine(4). Parliament having, by section 2(2)(a) of that Act, introduced the concept of the commensurate sentence measured only by the seriousness of the offence, went on to provide by section 29, controversially, that an offence could not be considered to be more serious than otherwise it would by reason either of the defendant’s previous offending or his failure to respond to past sentences.
Each incident may thus inform another. Consistently with the English practice explained above, that provision, which operated to the advantage of most defendants, NRI Lawyers was applied immediately to all those coming before the courts, whenever their offences had been committed. The question impelled by the Order is whether, overall, propensity has been proved. This may have significant adverse consequences for bona fide applicants: for example, he may have continued working whilst waiting for a response from the Home Office on the application (as section 3C leave continues the leave the person has, on the same terms) but unbeknownst to him and his employer, this constituted illegal working because in fact his application was invalid.
Final judgments of conviction were entered prior to Mapp. 313 vations made bear repetition. It is not English law that every defendant whose offence was committed before the commencement of section 29 of the 1991 Act is now entitled to be sentenced on the basis that, however often he had done the same thing before, his crime has to be treated as if it were a first offence, simply because for the two years 1991-1993 that section had been in force.
Secondly, obvious similarities in various incidents may constitute mutual corroboration of those incidents. Where this is lacking, the rule cannot apply, but the mention of a single species does not con- stitute a genus(3). Craies on ,Statute Law summarises the principle as follows :- “The ejusdem generis rule is one to be applied with caution and not pushed too far. The jury is entitled to – and should – consider the evidence about propensity in the round.
This can be illustrated by a provision of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The section’s brief stay on the statute book after the offence was committed can have had no conceivable impact on such a defendant and should have nothing to do with his sentencing in 2016. In our opinion, the High Courts fell into an error in applying the principle of ejusdem generis when interpreting the expression ” other authorities” in Art. In Ngyuen the only way in which they could be sure was by being convinced that the sole incident said to show propensity had been proved to the criminal standard.
It seems unlikely that the Strasbourg court, which was not in Scoppola considering any such scenario, would hold otherwise. First the improbability of a number of similar incidents alleged against a defendant being false is a consideration which should naturally inform a jury’s deliberations on whether propensity has been proved. Again and again the Court refused to reconsider Wolf and gave its implicit approval to hundreds of cases in their application of its rule.
To make the rule of Mapp retrospective would tax the administration of justice to the utmost. That does not mean that in cases where there are several instances of misconduct, all tending to show a propensity, the jury has to be convinced of the truth and accuracy of all aspects of each of those. ” In United Towns Electric Co. That purpose will not at this late date be served by the wholesale release of the guilty victims. Parliament reversed it by section 66 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993.
To invoke the, application of the ejusdem generis rule there must be a distinct genus or category. 12 of the Constitution, as they overlooked NRI Lawyers the basic principle of interpretation that, to invoke the application of ejusdem generis rule, there must be a distinct genus or -category running through the bodies already NRI Lawyers named. NRI Legal services As to this it said by our present Chief Justice : It was there argued that if the Central Government had to give reasons when it functioned as a tribunals it would obstruct the work of the Government and lead to unnecessary delays.
” “Finally, there are interests in the, administration of justice and the integrity of the judicial process to consider. Applications may be made in good faith and believed to be valid, yet be invalid. There are two interrelated reasons for this. But the rule was rapidly found to be unrealistic and wrong, requiring habitual criminals such as sexual predators or NRI fraudsters to be treated as if they were first offenders. “First, at the point at which the application is made, neither the Secretary of State nor the applicant will know for sure whether or not their application is valid.
The specific words must apply not to different objects of a widely differing character but to something which can be called a class or kind of objects. In rejecting the Wolf doctrine as to, the exclusionary rule the purpose was to deter the lawless action of the police add to effectively enforce the Fourth Amendment. The lex mitior principle should not be held to extend to such a proposition.