D'oh!

Victor

Navan Town Appointed Stands, Street Service Vehicles (Taxi), Bye-Laws 2021 https://consult.meath.ie/en/consultation/navan-town-appointed-stands-taxi-bye-laws-2021-draft

General provisions relating to appointed stands

10. The following provisions shall apply to street service vehicles standing for hire at an appointed stand:
(a) A driver, nor any other person, shall wash, overhaul or execute repairs to such a street service vehicle, except such repairs as may be necessary to enable it to be removed from the appointed stand;

The word "not" is missing.

GM228

Keen eye, feedback submitted no doubt.

GM228

This could turn to an interesting thread, what errors have managed to make their way into enacted legislation?

There were 15 sexual offences convictions set aside in Northern Ireland last year due to a legislative error which was only spotted 11 years after it was made.

L1011

Surely compulsory constant vehicle cleanliness and ensuring a perfect state of repair is actually intentional? :pac:

Grolschevik

GM228 wrote: »

This could turn to an interesting thread, what errors have managed to make their way into enacted legislation?

There were 15 sexual offences convictions set aside in Northern Ireland last year due to a legislative error which was only spotted 21 years after it was made.

Not enacted, but a recipe for asparagus gratin was recently found in the Belgian equivalent of the online statute book. In a section on the control of foodstuffs and supplements, as I recall.

GM228

In theory what about a so called scrivener’s errror or vitium scriptori doctrine, could such a doctrine be applied to statutory drafting errors which have slipped through to enacted legislation just like has been done in recent years in the US?

deandean

Not a legal document I know, but I remember a printing of the Dublin 01 telephone directory in about 2002 made reference to "pubic telephone boxes"!

Spook_ie

Maybe it's just me, but it makes sense to me and doesn't warrant a not

meep

Spook_ie wrote: »

Maybe it's just me, but it makes sense to me and doesn't warrant a not

If you take out the qualifier, you see the problem;

A driver, nor any other person, shall wash, overhaul or execute repairs to such a street service vehicle, except such repairs as may be necessary to enable it to be removed from the appointed stand;

Spook_ie

meep wrote: »

If you take out the qualifier, you see the problem;

A driver, nor any other person, shall wash, overhaul or execute repairs to such a street service vehicle, except such repairs as may be necessary to enable it to be removed from the appointed stand;

Yes, but I read it with the qualifier so it doesn't need a not

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

In theory what about a so called scrivener’s rrror or vitium scriptori doctrine, could such a doctrine be applied to statutory drafting errors which have slipped through to enacted legislation just like has been done in recent years in the US?

There is authority in a neighbouring jurisdiction for the proposition that the courts have jursdiction to correct "obvious drafting errors" in legislation, including in Acts of Parliament; Inco Europe Ltd -v- First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586, 592.

The court will only exercise this jurisdiction if (1) there is a clear error in the language of the law as promulgated - i.e. it is meaningless or absurd; (2) the court is certain of the intended purpose of the legislation in question; and (3) the court is certain about the substantive effect that the legislator intended the erroneous provision to have, even if not of the exact words that the legislator meant to use.

And, even if these conditions are met, the court may still decline to remedy the mistake. In a penal statute, for instance, the court will strictly interpret the language used and will not "correct" it in order to criminalise conduct that Parliament may have meant to criminalise, but failed to do so.

Note that this jurisdiction can be used to address not just errors in the drafting of legislation but errors in printing and publication, which occasionally occurs.

In Ireland we have the additional possibility of errors in translation. Most Irish legislation is enacted in one language (nearly always English) and subsequently an official translation into the other language (nearly always Irish) is prepared. In these cases the language in which the statute was enacted prevails, in the event of a conflict with the official translation. But the Constitution, and some Acts, are enacted in both languages and, in this case, the version in Irish prevails over the version in English.

There's at least one instance. The English-language text of Article 12.1.4 of the Constitution provides that:

Every citizen who has reached his thirty-fifth year of age is eligible for election to the office of President.

You reach your thirty-fifth year on your thirty-fourth birthday; your thirty-fifth birthday is the day on which you mark the completion of your thirty-fifth year.

But the corresponding Irish text provides that:

Gach saoránach ag a bhfuil cúig bliana tríochad slán, is intofa chun oifig an Uachtaráin é.

This requires a candidate to have completed thirty-five years. So far as I know, nobody aged between 34 and 35 has ever sought election as President but, if they did, the Irish-language text would prevail and they would not be eligible.

Peregrinus

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes, but I read it with the qualifier so it doesn't need a not

It actually needs a "neither". It should read

"Neither a driver nor any other person shall wash, overhaul . . ." etc.

As it stands, it's ungrammatical.

But the wording is needlessly complicated. They wouldn't have made this mistake if they had said what they meant, which is . . .

"No person shall wash, overhaul . . ." etc.

meep

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes, but I read it with the qualifier so it doesn't need a not

It becomes a grammatical question. The 'nor' in the sub-clause relates to the subject, not the verb. So it's essentially saying, grammatically, people shall wash etc.

But as @Peregrinus notes, it's ungrammatical as it stands as it's essentially nonsense.

Like you, I too understood the intended meaning, and I had to sneak a look at the spoiler to figure out the issue. However, once you see it, it's obvious, (and irritating!).

It's interesting that we both get the intention. However, given the forum this is in, and I'm not in any way involved in the legal profession, I would not expect this to stand up to any degree of legal scrutiny. Or would an intended meaning have any influence?

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

"No person shall wash, overhaul . . ." etc.

Yes, this is a bit more polished.

There is also the matter of routine maintenance, which couldn't be described as "overhaul".

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Yes, this is a bit more polished.

There is also the matter of routine maintenance, which couldn't be described as "overhaul".

The intention here, obviously, is that they don't want taxi drivers to use a taxi rank as a location for doing work on the taxi. Taxis at a rank should be available for hire and, if you feel the need to wash the car, top up the oil or whatever, take it somewhere else and free up the space for a taxi that's actually immediately available to the public.

I don't think there's any problem with a driver who is waiting for a fair passing the time by polish his windscreen or whatever. Anything more than that is clearly going to be a problem.

Note that it's already an offence in the principal Act for the driver to park or stand at the rank "unless the vehicle is available for hire". I think the bye-laws - breach of which is not an offence - complement that by pointing to particular behaviour which is inconsistent with being available for hire. Tghe main point is probably to create the exception for a breakdown - if the vehicle is in a state whereby it can't be driven away from the rank, then he can do the necessary work to make it driveable.

Victor

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/37/section/25/enacted/en/html

...

(4) The driver of a taxi shall not stand or attempt to stand for hire with the taxi—

(a) while the maximum permitted number of taxis which may stand for hire at the appointed stand under bye-laws made under subsection (1) are standing for hire at the stand, or

(b) in contravention of any other bye-law made under subsection (1).

...


(8) Where, in the opinion of a member of the Garda Síochána, the driver or person in charge, of a vehicle is contravening subsection (6) or (7), the member may require the person to move the vehicle from the appointed stand concerned.

(9) A person who contravenes subsection (3), (4), (5), (6) or (7) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class D fine.

(10) A person who fails to comply with a requirement of a member of the Garda Síochána under subsection (8) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class C fine.

(11) A member of the Garda Síochána may arrest without warrant a person who in the member’s opinion is failing to comply with a requirement under subsection (8).

...

jhegarty

There was a bible published in 1631 that left out the "not" in "Thou shalt not commit adultery".

GM228

jhegarty wrote: »

There was a bible published in 1631 that left out the "not" in "Thou shalt not commit adultery".

The Wicked Bible also apparently misspelled greatness and says "Behold, the Lord our God hath shewed us his glory and his great-asse".

Marcusm

Victor wrote: »

Navan Town Appointed Stands, Street Service Vehicles (Taxi), Bye-Laws 2021 https://consult.meath.ie/en/consultation/navan-town-appointed-stands-taxi-bye-laws-2021-draft

The word "not" is missing.

I think it’s actually “neither” which is missing.