new-zealand statutory-construction
Resolving question of conflict of Laws
<p>In a dispute with a government department it appears there are 2 laws which conflict.  The defendant is accused of wrongdoing under the law in question.  </p>

<p>Is this kind of matter something that can be heard/adjudicated/judged by JP's (who typically sit on the bench)?   I ask this because I perceive this as a matter of law, not a question of fact, and I would intuitively think  this to be something a judge would need to decide.</p>

<p>Jurisdiction in question is New Zealand.</p>

<p><strong>further info</strong></p>

<p>The conflicting laws are </p>

<p>The <a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0095/latest/whole.html#DLM315303" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Biosecurity Act 1993</a>, section 30(1B) which states "An inspector may require a person arriving in New Zealand to make a declaration about 1 or more of the following in a manner specified by the inspector:..."</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>The <a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1957/0088/latest/whole.html#DLM314571" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Oaths and Declarations Act 1957</a> section 8 which states "<strong>Where by any law in force in New Zealand (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act)</strong> any person is authorized or required to make a declaration or a statutory declaration, <strong>that declaration shall be made and subscribed in the manner prescribed</strong> by section 9 or section 11, as the case may require."</p>

<p>It is alleged by MPI (who handle Biosecurity) that "A person required to make a declaration in relation to goods specified in that declaration erroneously declared that s(he) was not in possession of those goods.   </p>

<p>It is arguable if a declaration was made, however the said declaration was clearly not the form required by the Oaths and Declarations Act -and the  words in the part of the declaration being relied on by the prosecutor were neither recorded nor made under oath.</p>

<p>Without details of the conflict in question, in Common Law systems, when two laws are in conflict, the law that was passed most recently will super-cede the older law (the logic being it was decided more recently and while not a repeal, still changes the law to the new condition.) only in the matter of the conflict (that is if new law applies to owning cats, and the old law applies to pet owners, the conflict only exists to pet owners who own cats, so the old law rules on dogs or fish or hamsters are still valid while it's cat rules will not be used in favor of the new law on cats only).</p>

<p>That said, there may be some defense under the older law if the incident at issue took place before the new law came into effect (you'd want to look at the law's date of passing AND it's effective date, if it has one).  Most modern legal systems will have bans on Post Ipso Facto (After the Fact) that would place the violation under the laws as they existed on the date of commission of the offense.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Is this kind of matter something that can be heard/adjudicated/judged by JP's (who typically sit on the bench)?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Interpretation and resolving conflicts of laws is indeed one of the functions of judiciary, which <em>some</em> specially-trained JPs are part of. These sit in the District Court and <a href="https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/lawyers-and-service-providers/service-providers/justice-of-the-peace/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">can preside over defended trials</a> in some simplest cases.</p>

<p>Whilst defending your case, you can raise however questions of law you think are relevant. This, however, will not stop a JP authorised to hear your case (like any judge) from reaching a decision — with or without addressing the question of law you raised. To avoid doubt — yes, a JP authorised to hear a case is by definition authorised to interpret the law and resolve conflicts.</p>

<p>If not happy with the decision you just appeal it on the question of law. The rank of the judge who made the decision does not matter (unless they are a Supreme Court judge).</p>
