Conference Presentations and Panels

Ms. Heidi-Marie Boakye has been a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Ghana since 2007.  She has since worked as a legislative drafter at the Legislative Drafting Division of the Office of the Attorney-General and Ministry of Justice of Ghana and is currently a Principal State Attorney.

She has been a Part-Time Lecturer in Legislative Drafting at the Ghana School of Law and a Guest Lecturer in Legislative Drafting at the International Law Institute in Kampala, Uganda.  She is an Instructor of the Graduate Diploma Programme in Legislative Drafting at Athabasca University, Canada.

She holds a BA in French and Spanish and an MBA in Marketing, both from the University of Ghana.  She also holds a Certificate in Law Reform from Public Administration International, London and an LLM in Advanced Legislative Studies from the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London.

The paper examines the legal framework that governs the professional ethics of legislative drafters in Ghana with particular emphasis on those employed by the Executive arm of Government.  In Ghana, legislative drafters who work at the Office of the Attorney-General and Ministry of Justice draft both substantive and subsidiary legislation. Although there are no professional ethics which specifically refer to legislative drafters in the performance of their role, the paper examines the professional ethics which govern them as public sector lawyers who are members of the Legal Service and that which govern them as members of the legal profession.

Ben Fraser is a Senior Assistant Parliamentary Counsel at the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office of Western Australia. He started working as a drafter in the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel in 2011; he has worked in Western Australia since 2017. He completed a Master of Public and International Law at the University of Melbourne. He has written articles published in the Loophole in 2019 and in the Public Law Review in 2020. He presented at CALC Conferences and Regional Conferences in 2019, 2022, 2023 and in 2025. He also presented at the Pacific Island Law Officer’s Network Legislative Drafter’s Conference in 2025. He has been the CALC Australasia/Pacific representative since 2024.

Drafting clear and easy-to-understand offences is at the heart of a drafter’s work. One of the questions that a provision creating an offence should answer is who bears the burden of proof. The golden thread of the common law is that the prosecution bears the burden, subject to “statutory exception” (and the presumption of sanity): Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462, 481. The rule is codified in many CALC jurisdictions, including the Evidence Act 1893 (Singapore).

This presentation explores the law of statutory exceptions to offences. The presentation discusses the difficulties Australian courts have had in trying to ascertain whether a provision is part of the offence or a statutory exception to it.

The presentation also sets out practical drafting techniques on how to make it clear that a provision is an exception that reverses the legal burden of proof. It will also set out ways to reverse the evidential burden only, and, crucially, how to make it clear that a provision does not reverse the legal or evidential burden.

Over the course of a long career, Eamonn has worked as a legislative counsel, as a solicitor, as a barrister, as a law reform commissioner, as an instructor in legislative drafting, as a member of various ministerial advisory committees and, from January 2018 to January 2025, as the head of the then Victorian Inspectorate (now called Integrity Oversight Victoria), a body that oversees Victoria’s anti-corruption body as well as other integrity entities.

He was Chief Parliamentary Counsel in Victoria between 1999 and 2008 and from then until June 2012 was Law Draftsman in Hong Kong. Eamonn received a Public Service Medal in Australia in 2005 for service to legislative drafting and public law and the promotion of plain legal language and in 2012 was awarded by the Hong Kong government a Silver Bauhinia Star (SBS) for dedicated service in law drafting in Hong Kong and his contribution to the development of plain language drafting in Hong Kong.

Eamonn is co-author of Modern Statutory Interpretation: Framework, Principles and Practice published in 2023 by Cambridge University Press.

Eamonn was appointed Queen’s Counsel (now King’s Counsel) in Victoria, Australia in 1998.

He was President of the Commonwealth Association of Legislative Counsel from 2007-2011 and President of Clarity International from 2016-2018.

In this paper Eamonn Moran discusses the important role delegation provisions play in public administration, looks at how Interpretation legislation can support their drafting and canvasses an issue about the scope of delegations that potentially might cause decision-making by delegates to be challenged.

Dr. Kiratipong Naewmalee serves as Senior Research Fellow at the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI), where his work centers on advancing legal development and reform. His expertise spans regulatory modernization, public governance, and institutional reform, reflected in his published research and advisory roles. He also holds judicial appointment as an Associated Judge at the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court of Thailand, and contributes to national policy as a member of the Subcommittee for the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission of Thailand, as well as the Fast Track Regulatory Reform for the Capital Market.

A recognized advocate of legal modernization, Dr. Naewmalee is frequently invited to lecture at leading Thai universities and to provide expert commentary on regulatory reform and governance. He earned his Ph.D. in Law from the University of Wollongong, Australia, an LL.M. in International Investment Law from the University of Ottawa, Canada, and an LL.B. from Ramkhamhaeng University, Thailand.

Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) has emerged as an essential instrument of evidence-based policymaking, ensuring that laws are not only well-intentioned but also practical, economically efficient, and socially accountable. Without RIA, legislative processes risk producing regulations disconnected from economic realities, imposing unnecessary burdens on businesses and citizens, and eroding public trust. Recognizing these risks, Thailand constitutionalized RIA under Section 77 of the 2017 Constitution and further formalized the requirement through the 2019 Act on Legislative Drafting and Evaluation of Law, mandating impact analysis and public consultation prior to the enactment of both primary legislation and subordinate regulations.

This article examines Thailand’s RIA framework in comparative perspective with three high-performing Commonwealth jurisdictions — the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada — all of which score above the OECD average in RIA quality, oversight, and transparency. The comparative analysis covers six key dimensions: legal basis, scope, methodology, consultation, transparency, and oversight bodies.

The findings indicate that Thailand’s constitutional foundation is robust and its institutional framework broadly consistent with OECD principles. However, some gaps remain in analytical rigor, oversight capacity, consultation depth, and the disproportionate ex ante review framework, which imposes costs incommensurate with regulatory impacts. Some key lessons emerge from international practice: adopting Australia’s tiered quality-rating system and mandatory cost quantification; strengthening independent scrutiny of options and impact assessments through a body modeled on the UK’s Regulatory Policy Committee, supported by threshold-based triggers to concentrate resources on high-impact regulations; and incorporating Canada’s inclusive Gender-Based Analysis Plus framework alongside extended consultation periods. Addressing these shortcomings would significantly enhance Thailand’s evidence-based regulatory governance and overall efficiency.

Raised in Northern Ireland, Genevieve read law at Trinity College Dublin and the London School of Economics. She was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 2006 and practised as a barrister in London for 13 years, latterly, as a member of the Attorney General’s Panel, representing various UK Government departments in a range of civil litigation. Having married a Scot and moved to Edinburgh, she became a drafter in 2019 when she joined the Scottish Government’s Office of Parliamentary Counsel, where she has remained since. She qualified as a solicitor in Scotland in 2025. She has been involved in teaching law at Queens University Belfast, the London School of Economics and Edinburgh University. In addition to her drafting work, she delivers training on statutory interpretation and runs her office’s exchange programmes with other UK and Irish drafting offices.

As misogyny surges in public discourse, especially online, calls for a legislative response grow, but drafting such legislation is challenging. In the context of the recent UN Women report on the escalation of online violence against women in the public sphere, this presentation will outline possible models for criminalising misogyny, referring to real world examples, including the Singaporean Harassment Court, the Online Criminal Harms Act 2023 and the recent Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act 2025. It will consider the challenges in drafting to criminalise misogyny including issues around the meaning of “sex” and “gender”.

Ross specialises in statutory interpretation (including comparative statutory interpretation) at the University of Western Ontario. His thesis maps the current approach to statutory interpretation in the UK, including the nature of bilingual interpretation in Wales. In Edinburgh, he analysed the interpretation and operation of Brexit legislation. Additionally, Ross retains an interest in tax law (specifically tax avoidance and interpretation) and the conflict of laws. Ross held visiting posts at the University of Cambridge, Yong Pung How School of Law (Singapore Management University), and the National University of Singapore. Ross is also appointed as the UK national report for European Collaborations on the conflict of laws and tax interpretation.

Legislation has to deal with all sorts of eventualities. Often, a statute, potentially of high vintage, is invoked in uncontemplated situations. Examples include technological developments, conflicting statutes, and the invocation of forum statutes in a conflict of laws context. From the UK case law, an a priori classification does not seem relevant. Rather, the approach is the normal purposive approach. This presentation discusses how the UK courts have relied on a statute’s text, context, and purpose to resolve examples of uncontemplated scenarios, such as technological developments, conflicting statutes, and the use of statutes in the choice of law context.

Mason Stott is a lawyer with the Province of Saskatchewan's Ministry of Justice's Legislative Drafting Branch, in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. He obtained his Juris Doctor (2019), LLM (2022), and Bachelor of Commerce (2015) from the University of Saskatchewan, and his Master of Public Policy from the University of Calgary (2016).

Orbital rocketry is a type of economic, engineering, and scientific activity that is new to many countries and there are uncertainties about how to properly legislate and regulate in this area. In this presentation, Mason Stott will review the comparative analyses he undertook as part of his LLM thesis, wherein he investigated the United Nations five multilateral space law treaties from the 1960s and 1970s, as well as foreign legislative schemes from multiple countries, and other space-related legislation from Canada, to gain valuable ideas on how to legislate in this area. His reviews provide solid foundational content that any country new to orbital launching can use to effectively legislate on the matter in a way that draws potential investment and business opportunities into a country, but also in a sustainable and responsible manner while upholding national security and defence interests, respecting international law, and protecting the environment, property, and human health and safety.

Archie Zariski BA, LLB, LLM, GDip HEd, is Professor of Legal Studies and Director of the Graduate Diploma in Legislative Drafting at Athabasca University. After practicing as a litigator in Alberta, Canada he pursued a second career as a legal academic at Murdoch University Australia and the University of Alberta and Athabasca University in Canada. His research and writing spans the areas of alternative dispute resolution, legal education, and legislative drafting.

The development of plain language drafting has required culture change in drafting offices. This presentation explores the drivers of such change including political will and the leadership of senior legislative counsel. Where both are stronger the philosophy and practice of plain language drafting has developed to the greatest degree exemplified by what I call "plain language+". Plain language+ goes beyond simplicity and clarity of style to include explicit aids to understanding and use of legislation that traditionally were not included in legislative text. Accessibility is now the touchstone of plain language legislation.