Statutory Interpretation: The Key notions.

• Statutory Interpretation, is essentially working out what legislation means, and applies the meaning in a specific context: a case. Statutory Interpretation has been used by the courts to help determine the purpose of statutes, and historically there have been 3 approaches that judges would use, which as shown below:

The Literal Rule: interpret according to plain, literal meaning of the words. If there is an ambiguity or an absurdity with this approach, use.

The Golden Rule: still according to the plain meaning, but with a slight modification to avoid the absurdity. If a sensible result is still not reached, use:

The Mischief Rule: is based on the idea that statutes were to be interpreted by determining the purpose of Parliament in passing the legislation, and adopting an interpretation of the words of the statute that is consistent with that purpose.

However, in more recent times, the Modern Approach has been used, which is the amalgamation of the three aforementioned rules, and aimed to look at the purpose or object of the Act as a starting point, as opposed to the Mischief or Purpose rule which required an ambiguity or inconsistency before a court had the right to consider the purpose of the Act.

• Similarly, it is important to consider the relevant Intrinsic and Extrinsic materials, Latin Maxims and Presumptions to help gain meaning from a statute:

• Intrinsic Sources:

• Things ‘internal’ or ‘within’ the Act itself:
• - Long title
• - Short title
• - Preamble
• - Objects clause (sometimes written as ‘objects’ or ‘purpose’ of an Act)
• - Definition sections
• - Headings
• - Schedules
• -  Notes

Extrinsic Sources:

• Things ‘external’ to the Act itself:
• Common examples:

• Explanatory memorandum
• Second reading speeches
• Records of Parliamentary debates
• Law Reform Commission reports
• Committee reports
• International Treaties and Agreements
• Other examples include the dictionary and scholarship
• These are explicitly listed in the Acts Interpretations Act 1901 (Cth) and the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)

• Latin Maxims:
• Note: Latin Maxims are secondary tools for interpretation – with the Interpretation Acts overriding. Courts still do refer to the maxims where relevant.

• Expressio unius est exclusio aterius:
•  The express meaning of one thing is the exclusion of another
•  E.g. If a statute that said adults could drive cars, this would be considered to exclude children from driving cars.

• Generalia specialbus non derogant:
• General things do not derogate from special thing/a specific provision in a statute will always override a general one. 
• E.g. If a statute said that no animals are allowed on public transport, and in a separate section (or separate statute) it said that visually impaired individuals may at any time be accompanied by a harnessed guide dog, then you would apply the specific provision on guide dogs over the general prohibition on animals.

• Noscitur a sociis:
•  It is known by associates – we figure out the meaning of a word by those around it (i.e context)

• Ejusdem generis:
• Of the same kind
• If you have specific words followed by a general word (e.g. glass, bottle, jug or any other thing), the interpretation of the general word is limited by the specific things that came before it (e.g. ‘other thing’ cannot be a doughnut or a pigeon).
• Qualification: there must be 2 words before the general phrase to apply

• For Ejusdem generis to apply, there must be the use of lists.

Presumptions:

• Courts make certain presumptions, which apply unless the statute uses clear words to reject them. This means these presumptions are ‘rebuttable’. There are as follows:

- Parliament does not interfere with fundamental rights.

- Statutes do not operate retrospectively.

- Courts presume their previous interpretation of a word or phrase applies if Parliament uses the word or phrase in a statute.

- Legislation does not bind the crown.

- Penal provisions are strictly interpreted in favour of the accused.

- Legislation does not take jurisdiction away from the courts.

- Property rights are not taken away without compensation.

- Legislation does not have extra-territorial effect.

- Parliament does not intend to interfere with equality of religion.

- Parliament intends to legislate in conformity with International law.

- Words are used consistently in statutes.