Statutory Interpretation and Statute Law

Statutory Interpretation and Statute Law Research

The study of the law is based on interpretation of the various acts and amendments that have been passed. This is because the process of enforcing the law often involves: law enforcement, attorney's and judges interpreting how a law would be relevant under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. To determine how such interpretations can be applied to a variety of situations requires examining how a fictional law (the Importation of Prohibited Chemicals Act of 2010) would apply to two different situations involving Helena and Lucia. You would then conduct in depth research of various statues and laws, to fully understand such distinctions. Together, these two elements would highlight how various statues and case law is interpreted throughout the legal community.

Part I

The Importation of Prohibited Chemicals Act of 2010 has several different implications for the cases of Helena and Lucia. Where, they both highlight how there is inconsistent law enforcement under the provisions of the Act. When looking at the case of Helena, this can be seen with how Commonwealth Chemicals Commission officers stormed into the motel room they were staying. In this particular case, the search was justified based on the legal principal of probable cause. This is where officers believed that a crime is being committed and will act to prevent such actions from taking place. However, the problem with this case is that they are misinterpreting the provisions of the Act. This starts out with what was discovered as a result of the raid and subsequent search of the Helena along with her younger brother Jonathan's room, where an industrial carpet cleaner called Cleano was found. The Act specifically says that the various substances of methalin; hexa-methalin; di-hexamethalin and any other chemical or dangerous substance are prohibited. This is significant because the language is broad enough that you could include virtually any chemical substance that Commonwealth Chemicals Commission officers could determine is dangerous. As a result, the overall aggressiveness and the interpretation of the law are violations of the Commonwealth Constitution, specifically section S109. This applies to the differences between the federal and state / territorial laws. This is because the can of Cleano is a carpet cleaner, which means that it is common enough that it can be sold in the state / territory legally, while the federal law says that the possession of such chemicals is a crime. The obvious inconsistencies between these different laws are what would make the situation in violation of the Constitution.

Then, when you consider the fact that the language is broad enough to include any substances and that the Commonwealth Chemicals Commission officers did not show what specific chemical is in violation of Act, is troubling. One could draw a conclusion that they are overstepping these boundaries, by not providing the defendant with information on what they actions they were in engaged in to be charged with such a violation. This would be an infringement of the basic rights afforded to the accused in all criminal proceedings under the Commonwealth Constitution. The fact that Commonwealth Chemicals Commission officers are not being forthright with all relevant information, means that they over stepped their boundaries.

Evidence of this can be seen with Jonathan (a 14-year-old juvenile offender and brother of Helena) who admitted that the Cleano was his. Helena did not know that he had such a substance in the room with them at the time of the raid. This is significant because it highlights how officers are intentionally overstepping their boundaries by not charging Jonathan with a violation of the law as a juvenile. One could infer that the officers are trying to avoid having to send him to juvenile court, by prosecuting Helena under the law (even though Jonathan admitted that it was his and said Helena knew nothing).

A third way that shows how law enforcement overstepped their boundaries under the law was with the background of the situation. Where, Jonathan and Helena were on holiday staying at a motel room. Commonwealth Chemicals Commission officers go storming into the room, as if they had busted a major ring for the trafficking of illegal substances. While a certain amount of caution when approaching the situation is understandable, the fact that they only recovered one can of Cleano (which may or may not have a banned chemical substance) shows that the suspected activity was not occurring. If it was, then the raid and subsequent search would have turned up large quantities of numerous substances, fire arms, possibly drugs and large amounts of cash. Instead, one can of an industrial carpet cleaner was found. Under the premise of enforcing the law equally, Commonwealth Chemicals Commission officers should arrest and charge all janitorial / cleaning companies that are using this product with a violation of the Act. After all, they would have larger amounts of the substance.

A fourth way that highlights how law enforcement is misinterpreting the law can be seen with the legal precedents established in Maxwell v Murphy and Polyukhovich v Commonwealth of Australia, Where, it states that Parliament should clearly state what their intentions are under the law. In this particular case, Parliament said that they were going after those kinds of chemicals that could be used in a terrorist style attack. This means that it is obvious that neither Helena nor Jonathan is involved in any kind of terrorist activity. The only logical explanation that Commonwealth Chemicals Commission officers can use is: that Jonathan has a criminal record as juvenile. Yet, they do not elaborate as to what his previous conviction was for. Judging from Jonathan's age and Helena being unaware that they had a bottle of carpet cleaner with them, it is clear that the Commonwealth Chemicals Commission officers violated the basic provisions of the law. Where, neither one of them are involved in any kind of terrorist activity, which is the intention of Parliament under the law. Therefore, to prosecute Helena under the Act for retaining a carpet cleaner in a motel room (that she was unaware her brother had and is very common) is a violation of the Commonwealth Constitution.

Under the second case study, involving Lucia, the officers of the Commonwealth Chemicals Commission is not accurately interpreting the law. Where, they catch Lucia, importing large amounts of Methalin and then storing it in her basement. This is troubling because the Act specifically names Methalin as a banned substance. Therefore the possession of it would be a violation of sections 4 and 5 (1) of the Act. What this shows is how officers are obviously ignoring various provision of the law, which talks about how large chemical quantities of such substances are illegal. The fact that she has imported and stored them in her house shows that Lucia continually violated the law.

Then, when you examine the overall true intention of Parliament, this law is designed to prevent dangerous chemicals from falling into the hands of terrorist groups. The fact that they did not arrest Lucia immediately is problematic, because she could be a larger part of a terrorist organization. Where, she is a vital link to a cell that is planning an imminent attack somewhere in Australia. Therefore, the more intelligence and information that can be obtained from her on the scope of her operation as well as contacts, could lead officers to the top leadership within the organization. Instead, Commonwealth Chemicals Commission officers obviously ignored the intention of the law. As a result, this could tell the possible terrorist organization that law enforcement is close behind. At which point, they can change their operations as well as restrict activities to avoid exposing the possible plot and their top leadership because of a breach. Once this takes place, it could mean that Australia is even more susceptible to a terrorist attack, as the misguided actions of law enforcement help to mitigate true effects of the Importation of Prohibited Chemicals Act of 2010.

What the two cases show, is how the interpretation of the Importation of Prohibited Chemicals Act of 2010 by Commonwealth Chemicals Commission officers is incorrect. This is because the person that they are charging in the two cases, more than likely have nothing to do with any kind of terrorist related activity. The fact that they only found one can of a chemical solution (which may or may not have one of the banned substances) is an indication that they are obviously over reaching when it comes to interpreting this aspect of the law. Therefore, one can effectively argue under the Commonwealth Constitution, there is a conflict in state / federal laws and their actions not providing full disclosure to the defendant. This is problematic because the overall intentions of this law were: to prevent dangerous chemical from falling into the hands of terrorist organizations. This is why, if the Commonwealth continues to pursue this case, it would not be surprising to see the charges against Helena dropped, based on Constitutional grounds and the lack of evidence that she is in violation of the law.

The second case highlights how Commonwealth Chemicals Commission officers made a major mistake by not detaining Lucia for further questioning under the Act. This is troubling because she was in possession of the banned chemical, had large quantities of it, was storing it in her house and was importing the chemicals in from South America. These different elements highlight the fact that Lucia could be involved in some kind of terrorist related activity. Where, the raid and subsequent search of the property would provide more than enough information for officers to suspect that she was involved in such activity, based on probable cause. However, because officers did not detain Lucia under the different provisions of the Act, means that the terrorist organization could know that law enforcement is not far behind. At which point, they could change their tactics or plans, to avoid any kind of further disruptions from the authorities.

These two cases highlight the ways that the law is interpreted can have a dramatic impact upon the lives of innocent people and criminals. This is because misinterpreting the intent and various provisions of the law, can lead to inappropriate actions from law enforcement on both sides of the spectrum. Where, one could infer that in the first case involving Helena, that Commonwealth Chemicals Commission officers had no justification for charging her. As a result, it is advisable that the government quietly drop the charges against her. Otherwise, defense counsel will be able to tear the case against her apart based on: Constitutional grounds, case precedent and the intention of the law from Parliament. While, in the case against Lucia, she should be charged for violating sections 4 and 5 of the Act. This is because she was carrying large amounts of the chemical Methalin, which is specifically outlawed. Then, the fact that she was importing and storing large quantities of it in her house; means that she more than likely was working in conjunction with a terrorist organization. This was why Parliament passed the law originally. As a result, the misinterpretation of the law could increase the possibility that such chemicals could be used in a future terrorist attack somewhere in Australia. Therefore, it is advisable for prosecutors to issue a warrant for the arrest of Lucia under the Act; and instruct law enforcement to detain her immediately.

Part II

Locating and Using Legislation

Locate the most current electronic copy of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). Describe where and how you located this Act.

This Act was located at Common Wealth of Australia Law. There were several different previous versions of the Act with the latest one being listed, along with the date that it became effective. This was found by conducting a Google search and typing in the name of the Act. At which point, the web site Common Wealth of Australia Law would come up.

The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) provides specific definitions for the meaning of individual and statutory declaration in any Act, unless the contrary intention appears. Note the section/s that provide for this in correct AGLC footnote format.

The definition of an individual under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 defines an individual as a person or authority with the power to make an appointment.

A statutory declaration is any kind of declaration for any provision of the Act made during judicial proceeding.

Locate the most current electronic copy of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld). What do the number & letter of the latest reprint of this Act signify

The number and letter that is showing on the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 is 15E. These signify the last time that the law was amended. In this particular case, this would have taken place with the Reprints Act of 1992.

Commencement of Legislation

When did the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) originally commence and where did you locate this information?

The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 originally started on the 19th of December 1973. This information was obtained by going to Commonwealth of Australia Law, by typing in the name of the act in the search box. At which point, the different amendments to the Acts will show up along with the date that they were effective.

What other source/s could you have used to locate this information?

Another source that could have been used to locate this information was the Parliamentary Library.

Updating and backdating Legislation

Until what date have amendments been incorporated into the latest electronic reprint of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)

The date that different amendments would be incorporated into the Act would be the 4 December 2009.

What is the short title of the most recent amending Act listed in the Notes of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) and what amendments did this Act make to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)?

The short title is the Acts Interpretation Act. The different amendments sought to ensure: that the Act is not working in conflict with the Commonwealth Constitution, to improve the clarifications of the Act, other case law / legislation that would apply and how the Act would apply to the costal sea areas.

Has the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) been amended since this, and if so how? Briefly describe your research process including the source/s you consulted.