Any read of the ever growing myriad of rules/reg's./legislation etc. etc that tptb insist upon to control our lives how do you know which is the most powerful in a legal sense ?
For instance, an interaction between citizen & police instigated by an alleged offence of Motor Vehicles Act. That Act lays out the process of what is to occur once enlivened by citizen's alleged breaching a section within it.
But, alleged offence also involves agitating processes that are covered under Criminal Law Act.
Next, say if matter proceeds to court & citizen is still waiting for the next step in the process to be taken by police( as stated in MV Act ) & has discovered police have caused actions to occur that on top of their disregard to their obligations under MV Act now engage the CL Act .
A read of CL Act concerning said action reads favourably to police.
Citizen files in court & seeks recourse for loss sustained & argues the position as per expected procedures to occur re; MV Act & police would argue their actions valid as per CL Act, notwithstanding their blatant disregard for their stated obligations under that originating MV Act .
Both SA Acts but both can't prevail.
How is it determined which SA Act both parties should have been controlled by, regarding the pathway of steps & who does what next, but clearly weren't ?
For instance, an interaction between citizen & police instigated by an alleged offence of Motor Vehicles Act. That Act lays out the process of what is to occur once enlivened by citizen's alleged breaching a section within it.
But, alleged offence also involves agitating processes that are covered under Criminal Law Act.
Next, say if matter proceeds to court & citizen is still waiting for the next step in the process to be taken by police( as stated in MV Act ) & has discovered police have caused actions to occur that on top of their disregard to their obligations under MV Act now engage the CL Act .
A read of CL Act concerning said action reads favourably to police.
Citizen files in court & seeks recourse for loss sustained & argues the position as per expected procedures to occur re; MV Act & police would argue their actions valid as per CL Act, notwithstanding their blatant disregard for their stated obligations under that originating MV Act .
Both SA Acts but both can't prevail.
How is it determined which SA Act both parties should have been controlled by, regarding the pathway of steps & who does what next, but clearly weren't ?
