4.1.07 The reasons for, and effects of, statutory interpretation

In Carr v Western Australia, the High Court had to interpret the meaning of the word ‘interview’ to determine whether a conversation held between the suspect and the police was an ‘interview’ for the purposes of the relevant statute and therefore the suspect made an admission during an ‘interview’. The word ‘interview’ was not defined in the relevant statute. Why was there a need for statutory interpretation in this case?

• The meaning of the word ‘interview’ has changed over time.
• The statute no longer reflects community views and values.
• The Act did not contain the definition of ‘interview’ and the High Court needed to determine whether the statute covered this particular situation.
• The court needed to explain to and educate the public what an interview was.

Which of the following is not an effect of statutory interpretation?

• A precedent may be set for future cases to follow.
• The statute is amended to include the court’s interpretation of what the word or phrase means.
• The meaning of the statute can be narrowed or broadened.
• Words or phrases are given meaning.

Which of the following is not a key (significant) fact of the Deing v Tarola case?

• Under the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic), a person commits an offence if they possess, carry or use any regulated weapon without lawful excuse.
• The accused was wearing a black leather belt that had raised studs on it.
• The accused was charged with an offence under the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic).
• The accused went to a McDonalds restaurant.

In the High Court’s decision of Love v the Commonwealth; Thoms v the Commonwealth, the majority of the High Court ruled that two Aboriginal Australians were not ‘aliens’ under the Australian Constitution and therefore could not be deported following their criminal convictions. Some commentators and parts of government disagreed with the decision. What could the Commonwealth Parliament do to overrule this decision?

• Appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.
• Pass legislation that codifies the decision of the High Court.
• Seek to change the meaning of ‘aliens’ under the Australian Constitution by way of a referendum.
• Pass legislation which abrogates the decision of the High Court.

In 2019 Danny Lim, an activist, was found not guilty of offensive behaviour in a public place. The Magistrates’ Court had to consider whether Danny Lim’s behaviour was ‘offensive behaviour’ for the purposes of the statute. The magistrate dismissed the charges. What is the effect of this decision?

• The offender will be sentenced.
• The statute will be amended to include the Court’s decision.
• The words ‘offensive behaviour’ are given meaning and can be considered by future cases.
• A precedent has been set for future cases to follow in relation to ‘offensive behaviour’.