Legal Issue in the Case
The foremost legal issue that is involved in the case was a description of “knuckle-dusters” which is prescribed in cl (19), Sch 1 of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 [1]. The meaning of Knuckle-dusters along with several other similar articles have been produced with the use of a hard substance. Also, it can be fitted over 2 or more knuckles with respect to the hand of any concerned user. This is to protect the knuckles as well as increase the outcome of a punch or any other case for which it has been adapted. The primary word that is involved in the case was knuckle-duster.
Another word is “the user” which is prescribed in cl 2 (19) where the definition of knuckle-dusters includes the concept of a user where it stated that the item must be such which should be adjusted in the hand of the user [2]. In this case, the court has doubts about whether Starr comes under the definition of “the user” and whether the knuckle-dusters have fitted into his hand of Starr. The word “the user” is in need of statutory interpretation due to which the case was dismissed on the account that the was in doubt whether Starr comes under the definition of “the user”. As the word is prescribed in the definition of knuckle-dusters where it is under the hand of “the user” such issues require interpretation [3]. Also, the matter was dismissed in the court due to such kind of issue and an appeal has been filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions as they also doubted the concept of “the user”. The issue was whether Starr will call as a user or not if he would not be referred to as a user then there are chances that he would not come within the definition of Knuckle-dusters.
The “literal” approach concerning statutory interpretation apparently praises the Parliament which states that Parliament always means with such concept where they wanted to say such thing. When the meaning of the provision of the statute is clear and unambiguous then no statutory interpretation will be applied by the court. There is protection against the common law regarding excessive incursion. The preferred approach that which Australian Court uses concerning statutory interpretation is Section 15AB of the Interpretation Act 1901 [4]. The interpretation which is best describes the object of the provision. Certain provisions have the requirement of statutory interpretation by the court as in such cases where a literal approach has been used by the judges of the Supreme Court for interpreting the word “the user”.
Literal Approach to Statutory Interpretation
During such interpretation, the court has used the literal approach by interpreting the simple meaning which is stated in the statute. The court has considered the meaning where the statute says “literally”. The court has interpreted the meaning in simple terms and there is no involvement of ambiguity [5]. The ordinary meaning has been interpreted by the court by referring to the Act. The Supreme Court has interpreted clause 2(19) and determines whether the knuckle-dusters which are under the possession of Starr gets fit into him or not. Such an issue has been solved by the court by interpreting the ordinary meaning of the provisions of the statute. The objective of the interpretation is to identify the exact meaning of the statute as well as some provisions in the law so that it can be applied properly by the court.
The purposive approach is also called purposive construction as well as purposive interpretation [6]. It is considered a modern principle regarding interpretation. It is such an approach that determines the constitutional interpretation of any particular provision with respect to common law. The purposive approach that is used by the court in determining the statutory interpretation which has its roots in the legal system in Australia that is based upon the civil codes. It is such kind of method concerning the statutory interpretation that involves the objective of the statute as well as interpretation is made according to their purpose. In the case study, the purpose was to identify whether Starr is guilty of an offence or not. As he was charged with possession of a weapon that is prohibited and no person will have to possess such a weapon as it will contravene the provision of the statute.
Starr was charged with the offence that he is in possession of the weapon which is prohibited and the definition of knuckle-dusters involves the word “the user”. Therefore, the objective of the purposive approach for evaluating the statutory interpretation as such to identify the boundaries of the word the user [7]. As the court was also in doubt about whether Starr will be referred to as “the user” or not due to which appeal to the Supreme Court was filed. The statutory interpretation was required for determining the interpretation of the statute. The Supreme Court has discussed the concept of “the user” where the person who is charged with such an offence comes under the definition of the user or not. The Court has taken into consideration some factors like language that is stated in the provisions, the objective of the legislation regarding the possession of a weapon and the context within which the language of a statute is been used with regards to the case study.
Purposive Approach to Statutory Interpretation
Another form of statutory interpretation that is discussed by the court in the relevant case is purposivism where the legislation is considered as a purposive act where the ambiguous text in the statute is been interpreted by the court [8]. The Supreme Court has supremacy in law where they have the authority to statutory interpret the laws which are having doubt. Also, the court has made use of the golden rule which is considered an extension of respect to the literal rule. The literal rule is already applied by the court where they have interpreted the natural meaning of the statute. The golden rule is used during the statutory interpretation where the words which are prescribed in the statute are been interpreted by the court. Such words are given ordinary as well as natural meaning where the interpretation made by the court has a limitation that it should be interpreted which will lead to an absurd result. Also, the court has made use of the judge-made law while determining the statutory interpretation concerning the legislation.
The golden rule is applied by the court during such situations where the intention of the statute is been determined through such interpretation [9]. The court has made use of the golden rule concerning statutory interpretation that has made clear the concept of “the user” with respect to the weapon when the person has possessed it. Also, rules of textualism have been followed by the court for interpreting the meaning of the statute. It has emphasized the meaning of the text when a person has read it and the court has interpreted such ordinary meaning. The objective of textualism is to look into the statutory structure of the word and the judges have to make use of their reasonable mind for interpreting statutory law and provide a clear description with respect to the legislation. The court while using the method of textualism determines the statutory meaning with evidence and it reflects the meaning by paying attention to legislative processes.
The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal which was filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions for clearing the doubt whether Starr gets fits into the definition of “the user” or not. Also, he will be liable under the legislation regarding possession of a weapon. While analyzing the decision that has been made by the court is based upon the sources of law that includes the laws which are made by the Parliament as the court has adopted the natural meaning while interpreting the meaning of the statute. The court has referred a judge-made law for evaluating the decision. The customary law has been used by the court for obtaining the decision and critically analysing the legal problems and involves the relevant approaches concerning the statutory interpretation [10].
While identifying the definition of “the user” the ratio decidendi that is evolved in the case was the legal reasoning regarding the definition of “the user”. The court has identified the definition is related to construction where the user can be called a national user who belongs to the national class. Also, the specific user is not identified with the scope of the definition. The court said that Section 7 does not state about an actual user at the time of possession of weapons. The court states their legal reasoning that the possession of a weapon is made with respect to public safety as well as it is strictly controllable by the government. Also, the government has knowledge about the person who is possessing the weapons and knows about the usage of the weapon.
(1) Williams, E.; Squires, P. Rethinking knife crime; Springer Nature, 2021.
(2) NSW. Schedule 1 – Prohibited Weapons – Prescribed Safe Storage. https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/133191/Prohibited_Weapons_Schedule.pdf (accessed Apr 6, 2022).
(3) Hutchinson, J.; Amarasingam, A.; Scrivens, R.; Ballsun-Stanton, B. Mobilizing Extremism Online: Comparing Australian And Canadian Right-Wing Extremist Groups On Facebook. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression 2021, 1-31.
(4) Barnes, J. Contextualism: ‘The Modern Approach To Statutory Interpretation’. University of New South Wales Law Journal 2018, 41 (4).
(5) Tobia, K.; Slocum, B.; Nourse, V. Statutory Interpretation From The Outside. SSRN Electronic Journal 2022.
(6) Barnes, J. Contextualism: ‘The Modern Approach To Statutory Interpretation’. University of New South Wales Law Journal 2018, 41 (4).
(7) Taylor, A. The Conflicting Purposes Of Australian Anti-Discrimination Law. University of New South Wales Law Journal 2019.
(8) Redish, M.; Roosevelt, N.; Rodheim, A. Federal Jurisdiction As Statutory Interpretation: A Majordomo Purposivist Perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal 2020.
(9) Leib, E.; Brudney, J. The Belt-And-Suspenders Canon. SSRN Electronic Journal 2019.
(10) Kharel, A. Doctrinal Legal Research. SSRN Electronic Journal 2018.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
