TheInterpretation Act 1978[a] (c. 30) is anact of theParliament of the United Kingdom. The act makes provision for theinterpretation of acts of Parliament,[1] Measures of theGeneral Synod of the Church of England, Measures of theChurch Assembly,[2]subordinate legislation,[3] "deeds and other instruments and documents",[4] acts of theScottish Parliament and instruments made thereunder (added 1998),[5] and Measures and acts of theNational Assembly for Wales and instruments made thereunder.[6] The act makes provision in relation to: the construction of certain words and phrases,words of enactment, amendment or repeal of Acts in the Session they were passed,judicial notice, commencement, statutory powers and duties, the effect of repeals, and duplicated offences.
TheInterpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954[7] applies in the same way to Acts of theParliament of Northern Ireland orActs of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Section 7 of the act, concerned withservice of documents by post, replaced section 26 of theInterpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63).[8] It states that
Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expression "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.[9]
Interpretation of the wordsunless the contrary is proved is discussed in the case ofCalladine-Smith v Saveorder Ltd, as to whether the "contrary" means the contrary of the allegation that the letter was properly addressed, prepaid and posted, or whether it refers to the contrary of the deeming provision that the letter in question was delivered in the ordinary course of post. In this particular case, a letter was shown to have been properly addressed, pre-paid and posted, but not received. On abalance of probabilities the court accepted that the "contrary" to the deemed provision had been proved, the letter was not received, and therefore the deemed provision could not hold.[10]
The following cases are relevant to this section:
Section 18 of the act provides:
Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more Acts, or both under an Act and at common law, the offender shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those Acts or at common law, but shall not be liable to be punished more than once for the same offence.[11]
This section replaces section 33 of theInterpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63).[12] Humphreys J. said that that section did not add anything to thecommon law, or detract anything from it.[13]
The words "same offence" at the end of section 18 of the act do not mean "same act" or "same cause". A person may be punished more than once for the same act.[14] Two prosecutions for a single false statement in a brochure is not oppressive.[15]
See alsoWilliams v Hallam (1943) 112 LJKB 353, (1943) 59 TLR 287, (1943) 41 LGR 165.
The full text ofInterpretation Act 1978 at Wikisource
