1. Statutory Interpretation

3. Words change their meaning over time
Words change their meaning over time. Words that were used in one context at one time may now be used in another context. Provide definitions of the following words:
silly
nice
tell
awful
prove.

4. Compare their definitions with the actual definition and the original:
silly now means foolish. Original meaning was blessed or happy.
nice now means pleasant or socially acceptable. Original meaning was not to know, so a nice person was someone not to know.
tell now means to make known or inform. Original meaning was to count, such as a bank teller.
awful now means something that is bad or terrible. Original meaning was something wonderful or full of awe.
prove now means to show to be true or establish beyond doubt. Original meaning was to test

5. Key concept
Precedent operates when judges make decisions on the facts of a case and, in so doing, establish a new legal principle.
Judges can also make decisions on the meaning of words and phrases in legislation and delegated legislation. This is referred to as statutory interpretation and when a judge interprets a statute, he or she is making law.

6. To add to your definitions
Statutory interpretation:
Is the process whereby the courts are asked to interpret the meaning of words or phrases in a statute made by parliament to resolve a dispute before the court

7. Why interpret legislation?
Federal and state parliaments usually make laws to satisfy a recognised need in society.
As we have already seen, a variety of influences in society can lead to the enactment of statutes
. Legislation is written in general terms, with the intention of covering a wide variety of specific situations
Laws are also made in futuro, with the intention of covering future circumstances, but the unexpected can always occur.
This can leave open the question of whether a particular piece of legislation is relevant to an event that appears to be outside the wording of an Act. Let us take a closer look at why statutes need to be interpreted.

8. Reasons why legislation may need to be interpreted
Reason why legislation needs to be interpreted
Description
Intention of the act is not clear
Parliament’s intention may not be clear enough. Accurate instructions and direction may not have been given to the parliamentary counsel (next slide for example)
Legislation may be complex
As laws are designed to serve the community, they should be written in plain English so people with a reasonable competency in English should be able to read and understand what has been written. Unfortunately not all legislation is written this way and complex language may need to be interpreted so it can be applied to today's circumstances
Meaning of words can change over time
Dictionary words may change over time, for example “text” may refer to both print and to a “text” message. Courts are asked to interpret legislation in a broader sense so words are applicable to our changing society
Meaning of words may be ambiguous
Many words in English language have multiple meanings, and courts may have to interpret common words to justify meaning. Eg in the following case.
Difficulty foreseeing possible future applications of the law
It is difficult to foresee all future applications of a an ACT. In our rapidly evolving society it is almost impossible to predict changes in technology and science, or social and environmental conditions.
Reasons why legislation may need to be interpreted

9. FISHER V. BELL [1961]
Common law rules relating to the law of contract make it clear that when an item is displayed in a shop, this is regarded as an invitation to treat. The legally binding offer and acceptance required for a contract to be enforceable occurs when a buyer makes an offer to buy the item and the shopkeeper accepts that offer. Simply displaying an item does not constitute an offer. The defendant in this case had a flick knife on display in the window of his shop. Under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 (UK), it was illegal to ‘offer for sale or hire … any knife which has a blade which opens automatically’. The defendant was prosecuted under this Act, but his counsel successfully argued in his defence that the display of the knife was an invitation to treat, not an offer, so the exact wording of the Act did not apply to this situation. The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act was amended in 1961 to insert the words ‘or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or hire’ to close this legal loophole.

10. Facts of the runaway car case — Grace v. Fraser
In the case of Grace v. Fraser [1982] VR 1052, the defendant left her car parked out of gear and without the handbrake engaged. Her vehicle rolled across the road and into another vehicle. The defendant did not report the accident as required under law and she was charged with an offence. The Magistrates' Court ignored her defence that she was not driving and was, therefore, under no obligation to report the accident — she was found guilty of the offence of not reporting an accident. The defendant appealed against this decision.

12. The decision
The Supreme Court overturned the original verdict and accepted the appellant's defence that she was not driving and not obligated to report the accident. The magistrate in the original case had used a narrow interpretation of the term ‘driving’ and so the appeal was upheld. The Victorian Parliament disagreed and passed the Motor Car (General Amendment) Act 1982 to avoid this situation in the future.

13. Explain one reason for the interpretation of statutes by judges (2 marks)

14. One reason why statutes may need to be interpreted is due to the ambiguity of wording in legislation. Many words in English language have multiple meanings, and courts may have to interpret common words to justify meaning. For example, in the Grace v Fraser case, the term “driving” had to be interpreted to confirm its meaning in regards to the control of a car once its owner had exited. In this way, courts can give clearer and more defined meaning to words.

15. Explain one reason for the interpretation of statutes by judges (2 marks)
One reason why statutes may need to be interpreted is because the intention of the act is not clear. During the drafting of the bill, accurate instructions may not have been given to the parliamentary counsel, making the intention of the statue ambiguous. An example of such a reason is seen in Fisher v Bell, where the defendant argued that simply displaying a flick knife in the window of his shop was not an offer to buy, but rather an invitation to treat.

16. Changing technology - JONES V. COMMONWEALTH (1965)
Section 51(v) of the Constitution gives the Commonwealth power to make laws with respect to ‘postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services’. Jones challenged the validity of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942–62 (Cth), which allowed for land to be acquired to build studios for the ABC's television service. Jones argued that television was unknown at the time of the framing of the Constitution, so could not be included in Commonwealth constitutional powers. The High Court found that ‘other like services’ could include television, so the Commonwealth had the power to enact the legislation under challenge.

17. Test your understanding (4.3)
1.) Identify four reasons why statues may need to be interpreted by judges and explain each
2.) identify two situations in which it may be difficult to simply rely on the words of a statute to assist with interpretation
APPLY your understanding
5.) Identify two examples from the cases included in this spread where a set of clear definitions in the relevant Act may have made statutory interpretation simpler.
6.) Why do you think the High Court might have to take a relatively broad interpretation of the Constitution to deal with cases like that of Jones v. Commonwealth?
Exam question: (2 marks)
Explain one reason for the interpretation of statutes by judges (2 marks)
Bobby has lost his court case in the County Court. He had difficulty reading his judgment, and does not understand why the Judge has interpreted a Victorian Act of Parliament.
Outline 2 reasons why statues may need to be interpreted

18. EXPLAIN THE METHOD OF JUDGES AND COURTS MAKING LAW THROUGH THE DOCTRINE OF PREEDENT (5 MARKS)

19. Helping judges interpret statutes - tools
Judges do not just read a word or phrase of a statute and give it whatever meaning they believe fitting.
Courts employ a variety of sources to gain a thorough understanding of whatever it is they are attempting to interpret
There are two types of sources: intrinsic and extrinsic

21. To add to your definitions:
Intrinsic sources are those that are contained within the legislation itself, such as words of the act, the long title, preamble and headings
Extrinsic sources are those found outside the act – for example hansard, parliamentary debates, committee reports, dictionaries and the interpretation Acts

22. Judge’s common law rules
Ejusdem generis “of the same kind”.
It is relevant to legislation where a number of specific terms are followed by a general term.
In this situation, the general term is to be read narrowly so as to relate only to items of the actual type in the specific list
For example: if “diamonds, sapphires and other stones” are mentioned in a statute, “other stones” is the general term that comes after the specific terms “diamonds and sapphires”
Therefore, “other stones” must be interpreted narrowly as referring to only previous stones such as diamonds and sapphires and not like granite or slate

23. Expression unius exclusio alterius
This term means that the express mention of one term excludes all others.
In other words, if the item is not on the list, it is not meant to be covered
The words “diamond and sapphires” are expressly mentioned in a statute, the interpretation should be that the law refers to those two stones solely and not to other previous stones such as rubies or emeralds.

24. The effect of statutory interpretation
When a judge rules on a particular matter and in the process interprets words contained in legislation, there are three significant implications:

25. Creation of precedent
The decision creates a new precedent that becomes binding on lower courts in the same hierarchy when interpreting the same legislative provisions
In this way, judges become influential law-makers
The superior courts can have profound impact on lower courts in vital areas such as police conduct in drink-driving cases.
A precedent created through statutory interpretation in one case can have an influence on whether a litigant will choose to take action on a different issue in the future, as the following case illustrates.

26. TOONEN V. AUSTRALIA [1994]
Nicholas Toonen brought an action against Australia before the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), in which he claimed that sections of the Tasmanian Criminal Code infringed his rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The sections in question criminalised sexual contact between consenting adult males in private. He claimed that this legislation breached the ICCPR because its enforcement infringes his right to privacy by bringing private sexual activity into the public domain. The UNHRC found that he was a victim of the legislation, although he had no actual remedy under Australian law. In response to this finding, the Australian government enacted the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994 — Section 4, prohibiting any state from making laws that interfere with private sexual activity between consenting adults.

28. Case continued
Although legislation relating to sexual matters was considered a state residual power, the Commonwealth claimed the legislation was necessary to fulfil international treaty obligations. Just as it had done in the Tasmanian Dam Case, it had the power to override state jurisdiction on this issue under its external affairs powers. The Tasmanian government repealed the offending section of its Criminal Code, in the realisation that the precedent of the Tasmanian Dam Case would prevent it from successfully challenging the Commonwealth legislation on this issue.

29. Words are brought to life
The interpretation of a word or phrase in a statute dos not change the actual Act, it just clarifies the meaning of the word or phrase for future reference.
When a generic word such as ‘weapon’ is used in legislation, it may be necessary to determine what types of items are included within this broad term.
Eg:

30. DEING V. TAROLA [1993] 2 VR 163 (THE STUDDED BELT CASE
Under the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic.) it is illegal to possess, carry or use any regulated weapon without lawful excuse. The term regulated weapon was not fully defined in the Act, but under s. 3 could include ‘an article that is prescribed by the regulations to be a controlled weapon’. The regulations referred to are the Control of Weapons Regulations 1990, as made by the Governor-in-Council. These regulations provide a more specific list of items that are to be considered regulated weapons, and include ‘any article fitted with raised pointed studs which is designed to be worn as an article of clothing’.

32. The defendant Deing was a 20-year-old man who was arrested in a restaurant wearing a studded belt to hold up his trousers, and charged under the Control of Weapons Act. The Magistrates' Court found him guilty, so he appealed to the Supreme Court. Justice Beach in the Supreme Court found that a regulated weapon should be defined as anything that is not commonly used for any other purpose than as a weapon. He also found that the Governor-in-Council had exceeded its authority under the Act by including studded belts on the list of items included in the regulations. Deing had his conviction overturned, the regulations were changed to remove the section relating to studded belts and the Act was eventually changed to better define what constituted a prohibited weapon.

33. Parliamentary action
Decisions by the courts will sometimes result in parliament taking action to clarify an issue, or act to limit the powers of the courts to apply an interpretation that is not considered appropriate in today's society. The following case led to changes in Victorian statue law.

34. DE SALES V. INGRILLI [2002]
In 1990, Teresa de Sales's husband was killed in an accident on a farm in Western Australia owned by Ingrilli. Ms de Sales took action under the Fatal Accidents Act 1959 (WA), which provides compensation to the relatives of a deceased person. The District Court of Western Australia determined a level of compensation, but discounted the amount by five per cent. This discount was based on an old English common law precedent that allowed courts to reduce a widow's compensation if the court believed she had a good chance of remarriage. Ingrilli appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court on the grounds that the discount should have been 20 per cent, given Ms de Sales's age and attractive appearance.

35. The Full Court upheld the appeal and increased the discount to 20 per cent. In 2002, Ms de Sales appealed to the High Court which upheld her appeal and restored the original five per cent discount. The Victorian Attorney-General of the time, Rob Hulls, regarded the whole concept of the ‘widow's discount’ as sexist and discriminatory. The Victorian Government enacted the Wrongs (Remarriage Discount) Act 2004 to provide that no discounts be made to any damages awarded based on the remarriage prospects of a plaintiff.