When a bill becomes law...

Nevyn

When the president signs a bill with the date and time I know it is said to be in effect from that time but, how long is the delay before that becomes workable?

johnnyskeleton

If there is no commencement date specified in an act (as opposed to the bill) then the act becomes law as soon as it is signed by the president.

Arguably, the law only comes into effect at 00:01am the following day, but that is an unusual and highly techical argument.

Wolfe Tone

It could also not become active until a SI makes it so.

Jev/N

Does it not need a commencement order for the parts (if not all) being enacted?

Kosseegan

There is a commencement clause in every bill. Some clauses state that some provisions do not take effect until minister x orders that they come into effect by way of a statutory instrument. In some leguislation it will be stated in the text of some of the sections that something is to be the case after a certain date. It is extremely rare for there ever to be a court dispute about the exact minute a bill became law.

Victor

Jev/N wrote: »

Does it not need a commencement order for the parts (if not all) being enacted?

There may be a section in the act that makes it self-commencing "This act shall come into affect on 1 January 2011". I imagine there are also cases of acts coming into effect by default once it is signed by the president.

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

There may be a section in the act that makes it self-commencing "This act shall come into affect on 1 January 2011". I imagine there are also cases of acts coming into effect by default once it is signed by the president.

Yes. The default position is that it comes into effect straight away. It is arguable as to whether it comes into effect when signed, the following day, or alternatively as soon as notice of it is published in Iris Oifiguil.

Nevyn

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

or alternatively as soon as notice of it is published in Iris Oifiguil.

Ah So there is the possibility of a delay, either due to the SI date in the bill or clause in the bill or until it's published in Iris Oifiguil.

I know that Iris Oifiguil is now online but I wonder what the average turn around is for publication, does anyone know or could they point me in the general direction to find out please.

dermot_sheehan

S. 15 of the interpretation act 2005 states that unless otherwise specified in an act, it comes into force the day it is signed, i.e. not the next day or the day the notice is published in the official gazette.

johnnyskeleton

Thaedydal wrote: »

Ah So there is the possibility of a delay, either due to the SI date in the bill or clause in the bill or until it's published in Iris Oifiguil.

I know that Iris Oifiguil is now online but I wonder what the average turn around is for publication, does anyone know or could they point me in the general direction to find out please.

Well gabhain7 is correct as regards the strict legal position, and normally that is not a problem. But there is an argument to be made, especially as regards criminal statutes.

For example, due to industrial action (a go slow in the Official Publications office) or some such, last summer the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act, 2009 was not available in printed copy or on the internet for several months. Regrettably the DPP has not prosecuted anyone for one of the new offences in that act during that time, but if he did the argument could be made that the law was not in force.

Although people are presumed to know the law, if it is simply not possible to know the law, then how can people obey it? Of course, we will have to wait for the next big discrepancy between signing of the act and publication to find out when exactly. The difficulty with Iris Oifigiuil is that it is effectively the notification by the government to the people that an act is now the law. The Iris Oifigiuil entry for the 2009 Act came out prior to the printed act, which again led to an unusual situation. Arguably we (the people) were deemed to be aware of the Act before it was possible to see its exact terms. The Iris is published weekly and is usually pretty up to date.

As regards the 1 minute past midnight the following day argument, again it is an argument not a certainty. Supposing I am an avid fan of Drug X and the Dail has passed an act outlawing Drug X which is to be signed by the president tomorrow. Supposing I have a quantity of Drug X in my possession right now which I keep until tomorrow. The president signs the act sometime around lunchtime and the gardai arrest me in the afternoon for possession of Drug X (which, if s.16 is strictly applied, would be commenced for all of tomorrow).

I cannot be prosecuted for possessing a drug which is perfectly legal until the new act is signed. Up to that point it is legal and after that point it is illegal. It would be an unconstitutional interpretation of that act if it were signed around lunchtime but comes into effect from earlier that morning (it would be retrospective criminalisation). The president may not sign it right away (or at all), so it cannot be safely concluded that it takes effect from the day she is scheduled to sign it. Unless they can bring the president or else someone else who directly saw her sign the act into court, then they can't prove the time it was passed such as to make it constitutionally permissible. Therefore, it is only safe to say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was illegal from the following day onwards (unless of course you bring the president into court).

All this is great in theory, the reality however is that it takes the gardai just as long to come to grips with a new law as it does everyone else. So in practical terms, new laws are not always enforced straight away.

dermot_sheehan

While being convicted under a statute that is signed by the president but not published by the stationary office may be unfair, it is constitutional.

art. 25 of the constitution
Every Bill shall become and be law as on and from the day on which it is signed by the President under this Constitution, and shall, unless the contrary intention appears, come into operation on that day.

johnnyskeleton

gabhain7 wrote: »

While being convicted under a statute that is signed by the president but not published by the stationary office may be unfair, it is constitutional.

art. 25 of the constitution
Every Bill shall become and be law as on and from the day on which it is signed by the President under this Constitution, and shall, unless the contrary intention appears, come into operation on that day.

Once the president has signed it it takes effect and there is nothing wrong with that. However, to make it retrospective, even to the point of earier that day, would IMO breach article 15. Arguably, retrospectivity only applies to the Oireachtas rather than the presidential signing, but I still think it would be illogical to read an act as comming into effect from the start of the day when it is signed.

Certainly, if it a criminal prosecution arose from an act committed on the same day but earlier than the president signing it that would be constitutionally suspect, and IMO would be a violation of the right against retrospective legislation.

dermot_sheehan

Yes, it takes effect immediately from signature, but can't apply retrospectively that day.

In which case if for whatever reason a prosecution was brought the day it was signed, an argument can be made the state also has to show that the alleged offence took place after the bill was signed.

Victor

Thaedydal wrote: »

I know that Iris Oifiguil is now online but I wonder what the average turn around is for publication, does anyone know or could they point me in the general direction to find out please.

www.irisoifigiuil.ie (not there are lots of "i"s)

It is published 2-3 times per week.

Victor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

For example, due to industrial action (a go slow in the Official Publications office) or some such, last summer the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act, 2009 was not available in printed copy or on the internet for several months. Regrettably the DPP has not prosecuted anyone for one of the new offences in that act during that time, but if he did the argument could be made that the law was not in force.

It would have been on www.oireachtas.ie

Back in the 1980s an act (to confiscate IRA assets) was passed and signed in the space of an afternoon. It would be slightly ridiculous if the IRA would have been able to withdraw the money that afternoon had the act only come into effect the next day.

The Iris Oifigiuil entry for the 2009 Act came out prior to the printed act, which again led to an unusual situation.

Not a problem as I see it, people were on notice that he act was passed and the principles of it were available from various sources, including the printed Dail reports, oireachtas.iem, media, etc. How many criminals (some do) go looking at acts before they commit a crime?

As regards the 1 minute past midnight the following day argument, again it is an argument not a certainty. Supposing I am an avid fan of Drug X and the Dail has passed an act outlawing Drug X which is to be signed by the president tomorrow. Supposing I have a quantity of Drug X in my possession right now which I keep until tomorrow. The president signs the act sometime around lunchtime and the gardai arrest me in the afternoon for possession of Drug X (which, if s.16 is strictly applied, would be commenced for all of tomorrow).

I cannot be prosecuted for possessing a drug which is perfectly legal until the new act is signed. Up to that point it is legal and after that point it is illegal.

Individual drugs are banned by order and there is an EU mechanism that takes 3 months, so that particular situation may be moot. The recent legislation bans/restricts a category of drugs, based on their effects

It would be an unconstitutional interpretation of that act if it were signed around lunchtime but comes into effect from earlier that morning (it would be retrospective criminalisation).

I would largely agree, although there might be an exception for legislation introduce to clarify a matter.

The president may not sign it right away (or at all), so it cannot be safely concluded that it takes effect from the day she is scheduled to sign it. Unless they can bring the president or else someone else who directly saw her sign the act into court, then they can't prove the time it was passed such as to make it constitutionally permissible. Therefore, it is only safe to say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was illegal from the following day onwards (unless of course you bring the president into court).

Possibly moot, as there is usually a little ceremony, photographers, etc. at such ceremonies. In any case where they want it to be clear, they will make sure it is.