Plain language reading of BnaH; and suits interpretation of very technical provisions. This therefore militates against a high degree of judicial interpretation, but can also be unhelpful as it obliges cts to fall back on standard common law principles of statutory interpretation which may not be appropriate in the context of the fundamental law of the State. People (DPP) v O’Shea: whether or not a prosecution is entitled to appeal a jury acquittal. BnaH must be accepted, interpreted and construed according to the words which are used; and these words, where the meaning is plain and unambiguous, must be given their literal meaning. BnaH must be looked at as a whole and not merely in parts and, where doubts or ambiguities exists, regard may be had to other provisions of BnaH and to the situation which obtained and the laws which were in force when it was enacted. Plain words must, however, be given their plain meaning unless qualified or restricted by BnaH itself.