The court has that at tab 124 in volume 12 at MS 4359. Can I say immediately that since this is a provision which satisfies our rule of recognition, the question of its meaning and effect, well, perhaps firstly the question of its effect and then of its meaning, are matters of law for the court.
Can I say that I accept that it is a provision which requires to be construed against the background of relevant constitutional principles. So I acknowledge that it does not displace the Pickin rule and if -- the validity of an Act of Parliament once enacted could not be, I say, challenged under reference to an alleged failure to respect section 28(8).
I also acknowledge that article 9 of the Bill of Rights is part of the relevant constitutional context and that, it may be, is relevant to what the court is to make of the word "normally".