Can a section of an Act be commenced multiple times?

Tester46

Many modern statutes contain a commencement section which states something like:
"Different days may be appointed under this section for different purposes or different provisions of this Act."

Is it possible to commence a section of a statute several different times for several different purposes?

For example, if the transitional provisions of a statute have been commenced and the commencement order states that the commencement of that section or Part was only for certain specified purposes, can the section be commenced again at a later stage (even years later) where the new commencement order states that it is being commenced for other specified purposes?

This arises where the functions under the statute are commenced in a piecemeal fashion, but there is only one transition period set out in the statute which gives those affected by that statute a period of time to operate before the new provisions affect them in full. In these cases, the commencement orders seem to "re-commence" the same transitional period (i.e. the same transitional provisions) over and over again, each time a new function under the original statute is commenced.

Is that legally correct i.e. can the same transitional provisions section be commenced on several different occasions for several different purposes?

NoQuarter

It would be very strange indeed if this was the case. Interested to hear what the more experienced practitioners have to say about this!

Victor

I think it would depend on the particular wording and what was contemplated in the act.

I imagine it would be permissible to commence a section for the purposes of X, but not Y, but it would need to be done very carefully.

Indricotherium

Victor wrote: »

I think it would depend on the particular wording and what was contemplated in the act.

I imagine it would be permissible to commence a section for the purposes of X, but not Y, but it would need to be done very carefully.

It would have to be explicitly stated in the Act in question you mean?

Victor

Indricotherium wrote: »

It would have to be explicitly stated in the Act in question you mean?

I'm not saying that 100%. There may be cases where, for example, a geographic or some other objective restriction on the commencement might be appropriate in an administrative act. Such a restriction might not be appropriate in criminal law.

However, if the act does explicitly provide for such a commencement, then obviously it's allowed.

Peregrinus

I'd have to say that this doesn't sound like great drafting to me. The transitional provision which says, in effect, "you have six months [or whatever] to bring yourself into line with the requirements of this Act" should be worded so that it clearly applies separately to each requirement of the Act, and so that the six-month period runs from the entry into force of that requirement. If you do that then it's not necessary to recommence the transitional provision each time a new substantive provision is commenced. The transitional provision is in force from the outset, but it provides for a time limit which only begins to run on the day the relevant subtantive provision comes into force.

Tester46

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'd have to say that this doesn't sound like great drafting to me. The transitional provision which says, in effect, "you have six months [or whatever] to bring yourself into line with the requirements of this Act" should be worded so that it clearly applies separately to each requirement of the Act, and so that the six-month period runs from the entry into force of that requirement. If you do that then it's not necessary to recommence the transitional provision each time a new substantive provision is commenced. The transitional provision is in force from the outset, but it provides for a time limit which only begins to run on the day the relevant subtantive provision comes into force.

That's the issue in a nutshell. But is it just a case of poor drafting that while it isn't great, is ultimately still valid or is it a case that the same section cannot be commenced on several occasions, each commencement being stated to be for for the purposes of a different substantive function in the Act?

The way you have described it above makes more sense, but that is not what I am seeing in the Acts I have looked at.

Peregrinus

The courts will strive to give effect to the intention of the Oireachtas and if the Act is drafted in a way which envisages or accommodates commencment "for a particular purpose", I can't see the courts refusing to give effect to that. As far as I'm concerned it's a really bad idea, but not a conceptual impossibility.

Of course, commencement orders are made by Ministers under enabling powers contained in the principal Act, and its a matter of construction and constitutionality as to whether a particular enabling power enables this. But I don't see a killer argument that says this can't be enabled.

Tester46

Well, going back to my original post, the enabling language in the principle Act is a commencement section which states:

"Different days may be appointed under this section for different purposes or different provisions of this Act."

Does that kind of language allow the same section to be commenced several times, each time for a different purpose under the Act, as other new substantive provisions are commenced under the Act?

234

It might help if you linked the actual legislation.