These are just some examples of common law concepts. However there are two particular areas that merit more detailed attention in understanding the common law's operation in Burma. These are the common law's principles of statutory interpretation, and provisions in relation to judicial independence.

2.1 Principles of statutory interpretation
The common law dictates that fundamental rights will not be overridden by general or ambiguous words in a statute. Unless a statute clearly states to the contrary, the courts will presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual .⁴ As noted earlier, the courts' respect of parliamentary supremacy means that parliament can alter these rights if it decides to do so. But it must indicate that decision clearly in the words of a statute.

Under the common law, unless a statute uses specific words to deny these rights, the courts will presumes⁵ that parliamentary statutes do not:

- restrict peoples' access to the courts;
- deny people the protection of legal professional privilege (the rule that communications between a client and law yer cannot be used as evidence in court); exclude the right to silence as protection against self-in crimination (ie. a person cannot be forced to give evidence that may show s/he committed a crime);
- excuse those exercising public authority from acting le gally, reasonably, and honestly - this includes giving a person who may be adversely affected by a decision the op portunity to respond;⁶
- give a wide application to legal immunities for govern merit agencies;
- interfere with equality of religion; or
- require persons to do something impossible,⁷ this also leads to an assumption that legislation does not have a retro spective effect (but only applies to events occurring after the legislation is passed).⁸

2.2 Judicial independence
Although most laws in relation to judicial independence come from a country's constitution or statutes, the common law does provide some concepts, useful where these other sources are silent. Following a 1701 statute in England, the common law has three minimum requirements that must be observed in relation to judges:

- they have immunity from suit (they cannot be liable for things they do or say in the course of their work);
- they have tenure during good behaviour (they can only be dismissed for incapacity or misbehaviour, by a decision of parliament); and
- they must be provided with an adequate salary.

The common law also has two other principles that can assist in protecting or providing an independent judiciary: bias and contempt.

The rule against bias is designed to ensure that judges are independent and neutral. Where a judge has a financial or proprietary interest in the outcome of the case, this disqualifies the judge from hearing the case unless s/he discloses the situation to the parties and they agree to her/him hearing the case. If there is no disclosure, the judge's decision on the case cannot stand and has to bet set aside. The 1998 case concerning Chile's General Pinochet⁹ is an example where a decision was set aside because of bias, and in this decision the UK's highest court expanded the grounds for bias, ruling that it is not simply an assessment of financial or proprietary interest. A judge will also be precluded from hearing a case where: (1) s/he is associated with a party to the case; and (2) the party is seeking a particular outcome which is contrary to one of the other parties. Judges can also be excused where the circumstances of the case may cause a reasonable per­son to think the judge is not fair or neutral.
The law on contempt is designed to ensure people treat courts, and court proceedings, with appropriate respect. Parties can commit contempt in various ways including through publica­tions that interfere with the court's process (eg. writing or talking about a case currently in progress that could interfere with its progress) or that 'scandalize' the court or its officers (eg. talking/ writing something that causes people to think less of them). It is also contemptuous to disobey a court order. The last area of contempt is broadly called 'contempt in the face of the court' and this includes things like insulting a judge, interfering with the proceedings, refusing to answer questions, recording proceedings with­out permission, and suppressing evidence. Where a person commits contempt the superior courts of that jurisdiction can try and punish them (even including prison sentences).

4. R v. Sec. of State for Home Dept, ex.p Simms & ano'r, House of Lords (UK), 8 July 1999, judgement ofLordHoffman, <www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ ldjudgmt/jd990708/obrien0l.htm> accessed 10 December 2006.

5. See J Spigelman, `Statutory Interpretation And Human Rights', 2005 <www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/ SCO speech spigelman260705 >, accessed 10 December 2006.

6. Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CBNS 180, see New Zealand Parliament's Legislative dvisory Committee Guideline on Process and Content of Legislation <www.justice.govt.nz/lac/pubs/l2001/legislative_guide 2000/chapter_3.html> accessed 10 December 2006.

7. Withey & Ors v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (No 2) (1998) 18 NZTC 13, 732; see Guideline on Process and Content of Legislation (note 6 above).

8. Accolade Autohire Ltd v Aeromax [199812 NZLR 15; ; see Guideline on Process and Content of Legislation (note 6 above).

9. In Re Pinochet, House of Lords (UK), 17 December 1998, <www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990115/pinoOl.htm >, accessed 10 December 2006.

Chaninat & Leeds, a Thailand attorney firm has provided support in acquiring materials for the Thailand Law Forum. Bangkok lawyers at Chaninat & Leeds have also assisted with translation of Thai language materials.For any submissions, comments, or questions, e-mail the Thailand Law Forum at: info@thailawforum.com Please read our Disclaimer.