1. Get involved!!

2.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb9Jjnc Nq3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb9Jjnc Nq3k  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSA1Q4 22r-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSA1Q4 22r-8

3.  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’.

5.  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.

6.  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.

7.  Statutory interpretations:  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

8.  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.

9. 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 The legislation does not cover all circumstances. When drafting legislation, parliament is not able to predict all future circumstances. The framers of the Constitution recognised this when drafting a clause on telecommunications. Section 51(v) discusses ‘postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services’. The High Court has been called upon on at least two occasions to determine the meaning of ‘other like services’.

10.  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.

11.  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.

13.  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.

14.  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.

15.  The meaning of words changes over time. ‘Silly’ actually meant ‘blessed’ or ‘happy’ rather than ‘foolish’, and ‘awful’ was used to indicate something ‘wonderful’ rather than something ‘terrible’.

16.  The interpretation the court gives to the words in legislation creates a precedent that will be used in later cases. If the interpretation was made in a higher court, such as the Court of Appeal, then the precedent will be binding on all other Victorian courts. It is through the process of statutory interpretation that it is said courts play an important role in law-making.

17.  Advertisements and product labelling have the potential to unfairly give consumers the wrong impression. This conduct is prohibited under the Commonwealth Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (formerly the Trade Practices Act), Schedule 2, The Australian Consumer Law, s. 18, which provides that ‘a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive’.  Consider the words ‘misleading or deceptive’. The courts have interpreted these words in such a way that if a reasonable, ordinary person would be misled or deceived, then the conduct is misleading.

18.  Now, consider the word ‘conduct’. What type of business conduct do you think may fall within the meaning of this word? In many cases before them, the courts and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have found a wide variety of conduct would mislead including:  claims about broadband speeds; for example, speeds up to 20Mbps  a juice company representing a juice product as cranberry when it contained 80 per cent reconstituted apple juice  claims that an anti-snoring ring has a proven history of drug-free treatment, and that it was tested and recommended by a physician when this was not so  representations that cheese products were produced in Western Australia when in fact they were produced in Victoria  claims by a doctor on his website relating to the treatment and prevention of cancer when there was no scientific evidence or medical opinion to support the treatment.

19.  As each new case comes before the courts, the interpretation given to the words in the legislation creates precedents that are referred to in later, similar cases. Consider the following case study involving McDonald's to see if you agree with the court's interpretation of the words ‘conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive’.

20.  Consider the case Re McWilliam's Wines Pty Limited v. McDonald's System of Australia Pty Limited [1980] FCA 159. The fast-food chain McDonald's extensively advertised one of its hamburgers as a ‘Big Mac’. When McWilliams Wines advertised their new two-litre wine bottle as a ‘Big Mac’ McDonald's objected. They claimed it would confuse consumers into thinking there was a connection between the two companies. The trial judge found in favour of McDonald's. However, the decision was reversed on appeal: the three appeal judges of the Federal Court unanimously found that although the use of the term ‘Big Mac’ may cause confusion, it was not sufficient to establish that the conduct would mislead people into thinking there was a connection between the two companies. Therefore, there was no breach of the legislation.

22.  1.) Identify and explain two reasons why statutes may need to be interpreted.  2.) Explain why checking parliamentary debates might help judges interpret the meaning of a statute.  APPLY your understanding  3.) When judges interpret statutes and decide on the particular meaning of a word, in what way could they be said to be making law?  4.) Refer to the case study ‘Is the reference to “Big Mac” misleading?’ Explain whether or not you agree with the court's decision that the McWilliam's advertisement had not been misleading.