Definition of "Person" and "Includes"
Ronald van der Horst made this Official Information request to Ministry of Justice
The request was refused by Ministry of Justice.
From: Ronald van der Horst
Dear Ministry of Justice,
Within New Zealand legislation there are a number of differing, and seeming conflicting, definitions for the word "Person." I have presented two such definitions below;
Interpretation Act 1999
PERSON includes a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body.
And,
Succession (Homicide) Act 2007
PERSON means a human being.
My first question is this;
What is the NEED for the word "Person" to have quite different meanings throughout NZ legislation?
or in another way- Why have Person meaning a "human being" in one piece of legislation and yet have an entirely different meaning in another?
Maxim;
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.
Person INCLUDES a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body.
If we are to apply the maxim; "The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another," to the above interpretation, a "corporation sole," a "body corporate," and an "unincorporated body," are the ONLY terms included in the definition, leaving all other terms- such as "Human Being" or "crown" or anything else what-so-ever, expressly excluded.
My second question is this;
What is the meaning of the word "includes" as used in the following interpretation;
"Person INCLUDES a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body."
Is "includes" used in the restrictive sense, as in the quoted maxim, or is it used in the expansive sense?
My third question;
If "includes" is used in the expansive sense, where in New Zealand legislation will I find all those terms that are included in the definition "Person" as defined in the Interpretation Act 1999, though which are not expressly listed in the written definition? In other words, how am I to know, without ambiguity, what terms the definition includes if they are not expressly included?
If the Ministry of Justice cannot provide answers to these questions, would you please direct me to the govt dept which can provide the answers? Thank you.
Kind Regards,
Ronald van der Horst.
From: correspondence, official
Ministry of Justice
Good Afternoon Ronald van der Horst,
Thank you for your email received by the Ministry of Justice on 16 November 2015.
We are treating your correspondence as an Official Information Act request. The statutory due date for Official Information Act requests is 20 working days. You will be notified of any changes to this time-frame.
If you have any questions or queries, please don't hesitate to ask us.
Regards,
Official Correspondence Team
Ministry of Justice
show quoted sections
From: Paltridge, Antony
Ministry of Justice
Dear Mr van der Horst
Please find attached a response to your Official Information Act request.
Regards
[1]Description: Description: Description: Antony Paltridge
http://justice.govt.nz/courts/shared/jus...
Team Leader (Media and
External Relations) |
Communication Services
Office: +64 4 918 8800
ext 58980
[2]www.justice.govt.nz
References
Visible links
2. http://www.justice.govt.nz/
From: Ronald van der Horst
Dear Gina,
Thank you for the general advice- I found it very helpful.
Kind Regards,
Ronald van der Horst
From: Paltridge, Antony
Ministry of Justice
I am on annual leave, returning on 5 January.
For urgent media matters (23-30 December 2015), call Matt Torbit on
021636416.
For urgent media matters (31 December 2015 to 5 January 2016), call me on
027 6890667.
show quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
JOHNSON HOETA left an annotation ()
i would watch a video on youtube called DECIEVED INTO CONSENT by justinian deception, very powerful video which helps clarify the manipulation of our common words
Link to this