[blml] Minor/Major [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Rebecca]

Who knew my little question would cause such a discussion!

This even occurred in the recent Summer Festival of Bridge in Australia.
The Director asked the offender several times about how the card ended
up from her hand on to the table and the answer was always "I meant to
grab the Kind of diamonds but instead grabbed the three of clubs".  The
Director ruled it a MPC since based on this description, it was careless
not inadvertent. If she had said "I went to play the king and the three
dropped out", no hassle, mpc, moving on.

I really hope the new Laws fix issues like this. I know that, as
Directors, we are paid to interpret and apply the Laws, however when the
Laws lead themselves to multiple interpretations because of the language
used in them, the result is a wide variety of rulings.  By simplifying
the laws in "plain English" the room for multiple interpretations is
reduced (it is never zero however).

FYI - the trick was corrected with the King of diamonds played.  As
offender was now on lead, the C3 was lead.  End of situation.  Poor
declarer - she didn't want a club lead back through her hand, although
the lead offender was going to make, that of a Spade, was just as bad.
The end result was the same as if the situation had not occurred.  Not a
matter of law, but thought I'd add this tidbit anyway.

Rebecca

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org
[mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of
richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2007 5:42 PM
To: blml at rtflb.org
Subject: Re: [blml] Minor/Major [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Sven Pran:

>>>(And please keep this a question of law, not a question about
>>>the English language).

Tim West-Meads:

>>As if the two were somehow divisible.  English is the official
>>language of the laws and unless the "Definitions" contain some
>>specific guidance we are required to use an English meaning.
>>
>>I'm guessing that the alternative meaning of "deliberate"
>>(slowly and carefully) doesn't apply here so using the sense
>>of "intentionally" is the only real option.  If it helps to
>>think in "legal" terms "deliberate" is the difference between
>>murder and manslaughter.
>>
>>Richard believes that the word is "a nonsense", I think in the
>>sense that the law would be simpler and easier had it been
>>left out (I agree if that is his point).  The thing is it
>>*wasn't* left out.

Eric Landau:

>I am happy to accept Grattan's interpretation as the intended
>one, but would suggest rewriting L50B so as to avoid leading a
>literal-minded reader to the wrong conclusion.

Richard Hills:

But Eric's happiness begs the question, petitio principii.  Tim's
point is that a literal-minded interpretation of Law _cannot_ be
the wrong interpretation.

Of course my interpretation, as Tim guessed, is that we currently
have the wrong law.

Where Tim and I differ is that I am willing to follow a decades-
old tradition of misinterpreting the wrong law in the wrong (less
than literal) way in order to get the right result.  Where Kojak
and I differ is that Kojak believes the current Lawbook is easy
to interpret, with only obtuse literal-minded pedants (who see
merely the trees and ignore the forest) failing to do so.

I agree that I am a trees-not-forest obtuse pedant.

But my pedantic sense of neatness would be satisfied if the 2008
Lawbook would always lead a literal-minded reader to the right
conclusion.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, mentor
Divisional Executive Officer unit
People Services, Values & Training Division
(02) 6225 6285

Your Rights at Work
worth voting for

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please
advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This
email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities
other
than the intended recipient is prohibited.
DIMA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act
1988.
The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the
department's
website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml at amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml