Presumptions

Statute is not to alter existing common law – common law is established over hundreds of years so it would be wrong for statute to be passed without it being made very clear that common law was being superseded

Where statute deprives a person of his property… – it is presumed that that person will be fairly compensated

Statute does not operate retrospectively – it’s not possible to pass law and say that something that you did 4 years ago is no longer allowable and, what’s more, you are liable for your actions from 4 years ago, even though they were perfectly legal at the time

Statute does not bind the Crown – difficult to imagine the Queen standing as a defendant in Court

Statute is not to deprive a person of their liberty – it should not be possible to hold someone indefinitely without charge (48 hours I believe at the moment unless it’s terrorist related in which case it’s 72 hours. I’m not certain about these time periods but they’ll never be asked in F4) We in England, are not like the Americans and Guantanamo Bay!

Statute operates throughout the UK… – when parliament passes law, the intention is that it should apply throughout the UK except certain laws are not applicable to Scotland where they have their own version of what should happen (Probably Northern Ireland too, but I’m not 100% on that)

…but not in conflict with Europe – this is interesting at this moment in our history. As on June 8 2017 we are still within the European Union but if the Tories gain the strong and stable majority that they seek in today’s general election, Brexit may become a thing of the immediate future. Undoing Britain’s commitment to European legislation will take some time but Brexit will open the door to parliament passing laws that could theoretically be diametrically opposite to the equivalent law that is effective throughout Europe

Unless perfectly clear, statute is not to create an offence of absolute liability – unless it’s made 100% clear with no ambiguity, there cannot be statute passed that creates an offence for which there is no defence. Driving a motor vehicle that does not have the required average depth of tread on the tyres? No defence! Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol? Yes, there are and have been successful defences raised

Statute is not to conflict with existing statute – can’t pass a law that contradicts another existing law. Have to repeal the earlier one that is being replaced by the later one

Will that do for you?