So if there are two pieces of legislation that appear contradict one another, if it is not the most recent that takes precedence, how is it decided ? I thought it was called implied repeal or something similar. Maybe you could explain it in simply to someone less expert than yourself.
If there are two legislation that appear to contradict each other (which isn't actually the case here, as the 1980 definition is limited in scope to that Act and the 1981 definition specifically excludes the 1968 provision) then it would be for a court to decide - Parliament makes the laws and judges interpret them.
There is a doctrine of implied repeal but it doesn't apply to all legislation. It is also tempered by the presumptions that the court will take into account in interpreting legislation:
- A presumption against retrospective effect of legislation
- A presumption against alteration of the law
- A presumption against the Crown being bound
Certain basic approaches to interpretation then apply:
- the Literal: words must be interpreted according to their literal, ordinary and natural meaning;
- where there's ambiguity, the Purposive: words are interpreted not only in their ordinary sense but also with reference to their context and purpose;
- the Mischief Rule (see
Heydon's Case)
There are various permutations and combinations and subsets of these approaches as well.