It is up to the judiciary to interpret the law. Justice is served more by a just judiciary than a written law.
If there is any sacrosanct law it is the principle of no harm. Good law legislates for fulfilment without harm. It is based in the principle of no harm and human rights. The Declaration of Human Rights assists fulfilment without harm by asserting specific rights.
The legal system and associated laws, conventions, principles and declarations are a paramount record of society, the way it has been, the way it is intended to be, and the way it is. To know the law, particularly international law, is to know history and, to some extent, the practical bounds of society.
Written law should be interpreted with an idea of the society people wish for, an idea grounded in fulfilment without harm.
Common understanding of fulfilment without harm will manifest in a society that enables and abides by the purpose and principle. The precise form cannot be predicted, but it will be known when fulfilment without harm is both its basis and its outcome.
Without knowledge of law people will still likely operate within it if they abide by the principle of no harm.
The occasions when this is not the case are cases where the law reflects interests not in accordance with fulfilment without harm.
Excessive interest in formal, technical application can breach the principle of no harm and damage fulfilment. Laws, by their nature, cannot be written for every situation. They must be defined generally with wide application. This carries the risk of interpretations causing harm.
Interpretation is a subject of tension between the public, law enforcers and judiciary. Whatever the case, the prime guide to interpretation should be human rights and the purpose of fulfilment without harm.
[Excerpt from The Common Purpose Manifesto]