Paula Llewelyn’s lawyer, Douglas Leys, has told the Court to reject a request from the PNP’s lawyers that the constitutional amendment be ‘read down’ so as not to apply to her.
George Davis explains.
In law, the term ‘read down’ refers to the judicial interpretation of a law or statute in a narrow or restrictive manner.
When a court reads down a law, it limits the scope or application of the law to make it consistent with constitutional requirements or to ensure that it does not infringe on fundamental rights.
‘Read down’ often applies when a court finds that a law is overly broad, vague, or ambiguous and that applying it as written would lead to unconstitutional or unjust outcomes.
King’s Counsel, Michael Hylton, was pressed by the judges to explain why there was a request that the amendment not come into effect until after Paula Llewellyn had left office.
Justice Jennifer Straw asked why that request from the PNP had been necessary while Paula Llewelyn was in office, except to create what she described as a political football.
Leys told the Court there was no need for the Court to read down the constitutional amendment and not apply it to Paula Llewelyn, because she was validly in office at the time of its passing.
Leys said the Court therefore had no scope to read down the amendment.
He concluded by telling the Court that in the context of the case, parliament has acted admirably.
He noted the amendment brings the retirement age of the DPP and Auditor General in sync with other public officials and ensures nobody is left behind.
He says the amendment also guaranteed that the rights of the Auditor General and the DPP align with the rest of the public service.
Leys says there was nothing unconstitutional about those actions.
Credit: Source link