1. Statutory Interpretation
Case Study
Statutory Interpretation
Topic 7 Glenn Dennett

2. Case Study – The parties
Howard
Patricia

3. Legal Problem Methodology
Use IRAC Structure for each Legal Claim (Cause of Action)
What are the legal issues
What are the rules of law/principles of statutory interpretation
How is the law applied
What is my conclusion

4. Howard - Preliminary Issues
Jurisdiction - The Prevention of Privacy Act 1996 (Cth) is a Commonwealth Act which means that:
We will use the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) to interpret its meaning.
Commencement - The Prevention of Piracy Act 1996 (Cth) received Royal Assent on 1 July 1996.
It is silent when the Act commenced
Therefore we go to s 3A(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1902 (Cth) to determine the Commencement Date of the provisions of the Act.
The 28 day rule applies – the Act commences on 29 July 1996.
Howard is stopped by Federal Police on 30 July 1996 – so the Act applies to him.

5. Howard - Preliminary Issues
Elements of s 4 of the Act
A person (not an officer or crew member or ship protection officer)
who possesses
on board any ship, ferry or any other transport whatsoever
any firearm, ammunition, weapon or explosive substance

6. 1st Element - Person
Issue - Is Howard a ‘person’ for the purposes of the Act?
Is there a definition of ‘person’ in the Act – No
Does Howard fall within the exception (ie. other than an officer or crew member or a ship protection officer) – we don’t know
It is unlikely that he is a ship protection officer given the application processes contained in sections 6 and 7 that it is only one day after the Commencement of the Act.
We will therefore assume he doesn’t fall within the exception.

7. 1st Element - Person
Rule – Because the Prevention of Piracy Act is a Cth Act
we can use section 2C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) which says that individuals will be considered to be persons under Commonwealth Acts
Conclusion - Howard is a ‘person’ for the purposes of section 4 of the Act

8. 2nd Element - Possesses Issue - Does Howard “possess” the spear gun?
There is no definition in the Act
There is also no definition in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)
Rule - Use a literal interpretation – ie. first look at the ‘ordinary or natural meaning of the word’ - Engineer’s case
To determine the ordinary meaning of the word we would go to a dictionary – State Chamber of Commerce and Industry v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 329 – often now judges will use the Macquarie Dictionary
Section 15AB(1)(a) of Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) – also allows us to use extrinsic materials (like dictionaries) to confirm the ordinary meaning of the word.
Possess means ‘’to have as property’ or ‘belonging to one’

9. 2nd Element - Possess
Application – did Howard have his spear gun as his property or belonging – Yes!
Rule - Is there another possible interpretation of this word – s15AA Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) and Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR No.
Conclusion – Howard is in ‘possession’ for the purposes of section 4 of the Act

10. 3rd Element – On board any ship, ferry or any other transport whatsoever
Issue – Does Howard ‘possess’ the spear gun on a ship, ferry or any other transport?
Ship or Ferry – clearly not.
Is a train ‘any other transport’?

11. 3rd Element – any other transport
Rule - Use a literal approach – ie. ‘the ordinary and natural meaning’ of the words?
Yes a train is any other transport !
Rule – is there another possible construction of this phrase considering the purpose of the Act?
If we consider the ‘purpose’ of the Act, does it suggest their might be another meaning of this phrase: ‘or any other transport?’ per Dawson J in Mills v Meeking?
Yes – the act is about Piracy so perhaps were not meant to be caught by this phrase

12. 3rd Element – any other transport
Rule - First we consider the phrase ‘any other transport’ in the context of the Act as a whole – Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 and CIC Insurance v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997)
For context we look for any intrinsic aids
Section 13(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) tells us that the following items form part of an Act:
Long Title: An Act to deal with robbery of ships and boats in national and international waters
Preamble – none
Section headings – Possession of weapons on ships
All these aids suggest that the act is concerned with ships and maritime transport

13. 3rd Element – any other transport
For context we can also look to the ejusdum generis rule
ie. if words of particular meaning are following by general words, the general words are limited to the same kind as the particular words –
This rule suggests that the meaning of the words ‘any other transport’ should be limited to marine transport such as ships and ferries.
Interim Conclusion – the words “any other transport’, in their context, probably don’t include trains –
but can we look at any extrinsic aids as well to help us find a meaning that ‘best achieves’ the purpose or object of the Act as required under S15AA(1) Acts Interpretation Act 1901(Cth) ?

14. 3rd Element – any other transport
Rule – So if we want to include extrinsic materials to help with interpretation, we need to consider whether we can satisfy the threshold questions contained in s15AB(1)(b) They are:
is the provision ambiguous or obscure in itself? (s15AB (1)(b)(i)); No
would adopting the ordinary meaning of these words ‘any other transport’ result in an a ‘manifestly absurd or unreasonable’ result (s 15AB(1)(b)(ii))?
Yes
OK – what extrinsic materials do we have to consider that come within the ambit of s15AB(2) of the Act?

15. 3rd Element – any other transport
Extrinsic Materials
International Convention papers that created offences in relation to the robbery of ships and boat
Second Reading Speech – the bill will apply to pirates who cannot be reached by existing law
Conclusion – so the purpose of the offence seems to clearly relate to the robbery of ships and not the carrying of weapons on trains – so at least for this element, Howard doesn’t seem to be caught by the section.

16. 4th Element – any firearm, ammunition, weapon or explosive substance
Issue – Is a spear gun a firearm, ammunition, weapon or explosive substance?
Rule – Use a literal approach – ie. ‘the ordinary and natural meaning’ of the words? – so use a dictionary for each word to consider the ordinary meaning of the words (as discussed above)
Based on those dictionary definitions, it is possible that a spear gun is a ‘weapon’.
It is unlikely to fall within the definitions of a ‘fire arm’ or an ‘explosive substance’ though it is not entirely clear and is open to alternative meanings.

17. 4th Element – any firearm, ammunition, weapon or explosive substance
Looking at these words in the context of the Act – ie. Using intrinsic aids:
Neither the long title of the Act or the section heading give us much guidance as to whether a spear gun might be a weapon
The nosticur a socii rule – what is the context in which the word ‘weapon’ appears with the other words ‘firearm, ammunition, or exploding device’ ?
they all seem to be exploding devices or substances,
So it is still not clear whether a spear gun is caught or not by these words

18. 4th Element – any firearm, ammunition, weapon or explosive substance
can we look at any extrinsic aids as well to help us find a meaning that ‘best achieves’ the purpose or object of the Act as required under S15AA(1) Acts Interpretation Act 1901(Cth) ?
Rule – purposive approach - can we satisfy either requirements of s15AB(1)(b) to consider extrinsic materials we have to assist in the interpretation of this element?
What amounts to a ‘weapon’ could be said to be ambiguous or obscure – s15AB(1)(B)(i);
but the extrinsic materials we have don’t cast much light on the nature of the weapons intended to be caught by this legislation.

19. 4th Element – any firearm, ammunition, weapon or explosive substance
Application - It is possible for someone to rob a ship or boat with a spear gun
there is certainly a case that possessing a spear gun would be sufficient to be caught by s4 of this Act.
Overall Conclusion
While Howard appears to have satisfied the 1st, 2nd and 4th elements of this offence,
I would submit/argue that that the 3rd element of the offence cannot be proven, so his chances of defending the charges are good.

20. Patricia - Preliminary Issues
Jurisdiction - The Prevention of Privacy Act 1996 (Cth) is a Commonwealth Act which means that:
We will use the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) to interpret its meaning.
Commencement - The Prevention of Piracy Act 1996 (Cth) received Royal Assent on 1 July 1996.
It is silent when the Act commenced
Therefore we go to s 3A(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1902 (Cth) to determine the Commencement Date of the provisions of the Act.
The 28 day rule applies – the Act commences on 29 July 1996.
Patricia performs her act on 5 August 1996 – so the Act also applies to her.

21. Patricia- Preliminary Issues
Elements of s 5 of the Act
A person
Causes (or attempts) to be diverted
A ship
Diverted from its scheduled course

22. 1st Element - Person
Issue – Is Patricia a ‘person’ for the purposes of the Act?
Is there a definition of ‘person’ in the Act – No
Because the Prevention of Piracy Act is a Commonwealth Act – we can refer to section 2C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) says that individuals will be considered to be persons under Commonwealth Acts
Conclusion - Patricia is a person for the purposes of s5 of the Act

23. 2nd Element – Causes (or attempts) to be diverted
Issue – Did Patricia ‘cause or attempt to cause’ the ship to be diverted?
Rule – use the literal approach
There is no express definition of ‘cause or attempts to cause’ – so we should start with the ordinary or natual meaning of these words: State Chamber of Commerce and Industry v Commonwealth
and s15AB(1)(a) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 – to confirm the dictionary meaning
Conclusion – yes, Patricia did attempt (albeit unsuccessfully) to divert the ship for the purposes of s5 of the Act

24. 3rd Element – A Ship
Issue – was the container ship – a ship for the purposes of the Act?
Rule – use the literal approach
the ordinary or natural meaning of the word ‘ship’ generally includes a container ship
Rule - a consideration of the purpose of the Act (s15AA) (at least from the long title of the Act) does not suggest that this word is open to any other interpretation that would ‘best achieve’ the purpose of the Act.
Conclusion – yes - it was a ship for the purposes of s5 of the Act

25. 4th Element – diverted from its scheduled course
Issue – was the ship diverted from its scheduled course?
Rule - Use a literal interpretation – ie. first look at the ‘ordinary or natural meaning of the word’ - Engineer’s case
there is little doubt that Patricia did attempt to do divert the ship
Rule - but the courts also have an obligation to consider whether there is any other possible meaning of this provision given the purpose of the Act – per Dawson J in Mills v Meeking , to find a construction of the provision that would ‘best achieve’ the purposes of the Act - s15AA Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)

26. 4th Element – diverted from its scheduled course
Application – what is the purpose of the Act ?
First – consider any intrinsic aids we have
The long title of the Act – suggests that the purpose of the Act might be limited diversions that relate to “robbery of ships in national and international water”
this would suggest that ‘diverted from its scheduled course’ shouldbe considered in the course of a robbery of a ship
Next - consider any extrinsic aids to determine the purpose of the Act (and hence the possible meaning of these words)?
can we satisfy the threshold requirements in s15AB
S15AB(1)(a) is not relevant
S15AB(1)(b)(i) – the words diversion from its scheduled course could be argued to be ‘ambiguous and obscure’ in the sense that it could be argued it is that it is not clear whether these words include the first diversion and/or all subsequent diversions.
Interim conclusion - While what is ambiguous can be interpreted broadly, on balance, it is unlikely that the court would consider these words 'ambiguous and obscure’ in themselves .

27. 4th Element – diverted from its scheduled course
Application (contd)
S15AB(1)(b)(ii) – if this provision was interpreted using the ordinary meaning of these words it would result in a ‘manifestly absurd’ and ‘unreasonable result’ in that Patricia might be caught by this provision because she was trying to divert the ship when it was already diverted by natural causes, being a storm.
As a result, we can use:
International Convention papers to show that they created offences in relation to the robbery of ships and boats; and
Second Reading Speech – to show that the purpose of the bill was to capture pirates who cannot be reached by existing law and so that the words ‘diverted from its scheduled course’ should be interpreted only with respect to diversions from scheduled courses involving a robbery or some act of piracy – rather than a diversion intended to secure the ship and its passengers during a storm.

28. 4th Element – diverted from its scheduled course
Overall Conclusion
While Patricia appears to have satisfied the 1st, 2nd and 3rd elements of this offence, there are reasonable arguments that the 4th element of the offence in s5 could be successfully challenged.
The 4th element should only be limited to diversions from scheduled course in the course of an act of piracy or robbery in national or international waters.

29. The End