Judicial elucidation of Acts:
In fact the other points to be noted in relation to judicial elucidation of Acts are as follows: like;
(a) There is no clause of an Act is to be construed in isolation although in relation to the other clauses of the Act, and the context then so as to arrive at a consistent meaning of the whole Act.
(b) There is, in England the judges do not refer to the passages in HANSARD so then the legislative history of an enactment or the explanatory memoranda that preface the Bills earlier then Parliament, in order just to arrive at a wrapping up on the possible meaning of the words therein. It is not clear whereas the England courts will adopt the same approach.
(c) "It is clear such that the language of a Minister of the Crown in proposing in Parliament a measure that ultimately becomes law is inadmissible". Conversely the English courts cannot since look at it to the purpose of construction. So it is not yet as known whereas England courts will adopt the same view.
(d) Conversely reports of Commissions or Committees that preceded the legislation are not looked at through English courts for the purpose of construction. Like as a case, in KATIKIRO OF BUGANDA v ATT. - GENERAL there a White Paper containing the recommendations of a constitutional consultation held in Uganda was held inadmissible as an aid to the construction of the Buganda Agreement 1955 Order-in-Council 1955.