Overview of the Case
Several issues arise concerning what different people did in this case scenario especially if it is considered that the Firearm Restriction (Terrorist Organisations) Act 2020 had been passed. This act restricts people from taking part in different forms of behavior. The act was passed by the federal parliament and its provisions prohibit possession, ownership, and/or use of firearms. In this case, firearms are regarded as a shotgun, machine gun, or any other weapon.
When Bob was searched he was found carrying a rifle which is against s 5 of the Firearm Restriction Act 2020. When the police officers attempted to confiscate the riffle as stated in s 6 of the Firearm Restriction Act 2020 Bob resisted which implies that he contravened s 7 and has to be liable to a penalty of $ 5000 fine and/or imprisonment of two months.
Clive also contravened s 7 of the act because he interfered with the police officer who wanted to take away the rifle. The act also prohibits funding of illegal groups which Pamela Hanson has done meaning that she has contravened s 4 of the Firearm Restriction Act 2020. She has funded the conference in which a demonstration is being planned and from the fact that there is a plan to have a demonstration implies that the group is illegal.
The three, Bob, Clive, and Pamela have now been charged for contravening the Firearm Restriction act 2020 based on their actions.
When it comes to statutory interpretation of law some principles should be applied. These principles are guided by common sense. In this sense, the starting point is the words, context, and purpose of given legislation that has been passed. All these things should be in a position to give rise to fair and workable results. The legislation should, therefore, apply to other similar cases. This implies that common sense has to be applied appropriately. Even though the Australian law provides some rules which should be applied when it comes to the interpretation of given legislation but a great extent, this is all about common sense.
When looking at given legislation, it would be wrong to look at the extrinsic material of the law which has to be applied. The application of the statutory construction of a given law should be applied exhaustively. At the same time, the historical and extrinsic matters of given legislation cannot be used when interpreting a given law. The exact meaning of the words which are used in the writing of a given law should be considered when it comes to statutory interpretation of a given law. Therefore, there is a need for precision and clarity when it comes to drafting laws so that the interpretation of a given set of laws is easily understood.
Principles of Statutory Interpretation
When interpreting given legislation, there is a need to ensure that the purpose of a given law. The purpose of given legislation can be used to elucidate its interpretation if the purpose of given legislation has been established at the right level and in a manner that makes it specific. This has to be the case because there are some legislations which might have contradicting purposes. The implication of this according to Australian law is that there is a conflict in the meaning of given legislation, then the purpose of the legislation is used when interpreting the legislation in question. An attempt to interpret a given law without considering the aspect of purpose implies that there are high chances that an individual might end up with a wrong interpretation. This is something which should be avoided at all costs because, at the end of the day, someone will be doing the wrong things.
The intention of given legislation is crucial when it comes to interpreting its meaning. When the aspect of intention is considered, there is a need to note that the meaning of a given text of the legislation is not that which the person reading it gives it but rather the intentional meaning should provide the meaning for given legislation. This could largely imply that the general state of mind of the members of parliament when they were enacting given legislation can be used to provide an interpretation to given legislation. An attempt to interpret the law or a section of legislation based on what one understands should not be based upon when it comes to interpreting the law unless this is in line with the intention of the legislatures of a given law. When this rule is taken out of the interpretation of any law then its interpretation might not be right. When a person wants to ensure that the application and interpretation of a law, then the law must remain operating within the intention of those who designed such a form of law. This would mean that one has to understand the state of mind of the legislature at the time when the law was passed so that its original intention can be met.
Another crucial aspect that should be taken seriously when interpreting legislation is the function a given law has to play. If for instance, a given interpretation leads to an application of the law in a manner that does not contribute to the accomplishment of its function then this is not the right interpretation of the law. This implies that the right interpretation of given legislation or law has to be guided by the intended function of a given law. There is a close relationship between intention and function. This happens because when given legislation was designed than those who designed it had a proper understanding of what function was supposed to achieve. This, therefore, implies that the function which law has to play should be achieved through all aspects which ensure that at one point the function of the law is being played appropriately. For instance, legislation that was aimed at ensuring that people are leading a peaceful function stay should ensure that all things have been done in the right manner. Some legislations have conflicting functions. When this happens then there are high chances that this legislation might end up being self-contradicting.
Importance of the Purpose and Intention of Legislation
At the same time, legality has no place when it comes to discussing the interpretation of a given law. This implies that when it comes to interpreting given legislation, the aspect of legality should not be brought in. even it has to be dragged in, then its impacts or contributions to the interpretation of the law in question.
An attempt to relate the rule of interpretation to the case scenario above reveals there is no case which should be answered by the three who have been charged. For instance, s 4 of the act provides that a member of a prohibited group should not have a gun. Under definitions, the prohibited group is identified as that which furthers a violent or a disruptive action with a special emphasis on a religious, political, or ideological. The interpretation which comes out from these sections is unclear since someone would ask what exactly is meant by disruptive. If according to the cattle herders and grazers association who are planning to conduct a demonstration can be viewed as disruptive then there is no doubt that this section goes against the human rights which provides that people have a right to a peaceful demonstration. This is a peaceful demonstration because the nature of activities the association is planning to take part in might not cause harm to any person.
Furthermore, the function and purpose of this act are to prevent acts of terrorism but it does not target terrorists. An attempt to apply different sections of the act to charge Bob, Clive, and Pamela will mean that the interpretation of this law does not aid in the accomplishment of the original purpose of this act. It is unless the court confirms that the three are terrorists or have links to terrorism then it will be possible for the right interpretation to be applied to them. Once this has not been done, then the acts which the three have been caught in do not relate to terrorism in any manner. One should also be in a position to note that the act under its short title shows that possession, use, and dealing in weapons among terrorist groups is prohibited. Even though this title points out that the act has to ensure that acts of terrorism have been dealt with but the definition of prohibited groups does not cover anything special to do with terrorism. This means that the functions which the law has to play appear to be contradicting against each other.
Function of the Law and its Interpretation
The introduction part shows that the intent of the legislators who came up with this kind of law wanted to ensure that acts of terrorism have been contained. This would be achieved by ensuring that any person who happens to have a firearm and they belong to a terrorist group should be reprimanded. Even though the investigation which was conducted by the police officers showed that the group was planning to take part in a demonstration, the law does not provide a link between demonstration and picketing with terrorism. Furthermore, the instances where terrorism is mentioned are limited making it almost impossible to discern what is meant by the word terrorism. This definition would have provided a clear understanding of what terrorism is so that it can be linked to what Pamela, Bob, and Clive did.
The fact that Pamela funded a prohibited group is not questionable based on this act but rather what has to be established first is how prohibited the group was. Once this has been determined then there will also be a need to establish the connection between this prohibition and terrorism which should be fought. If this cannot be done then there are high chances that an individual might realize that there are ambiguities when this law is interpreted.
S 7 of the act, renders any person who interferes with the police officer while enforcing s 6 of the act as liable. On the other hand, this is drawn from s 5 of the act which is not in line with the intention of the act. The liability which is imposed on an individual for possessing a firearm, funding an illegal group, and preventing a police officer from confiscating the firearm does not relate to the function of the actin in any manner. The inconstancy which comes when this piece of law is interpreted renders this case worthless since the law cannot be made operational since the provisions in the law do not contribute to achieving the purpose of the law.
Furthermore, there is no proof that Bob is a member of a prohibited group, he only attended their meeting. The law in this act does not prohibit attending the meeting but rather membership to such a group. On the other hand, Pamela funded the meeting not a demonstration. The provision in the act has to be specific on what as to be funded so that one can be held liable.
Defense Argument for Bob, Clive, and Pamela
Conclusion
In conclusion, an attempt to interpret the Firearms Restriction Act 202o in line with its intention, purpose, function, and what has happened, there is no way all these aspects are fitting into each other. The application of this law does not contribute to preventing terrorism or even reducing it because those who are targeted by the act do not belong to this group. This is based on the fact that a definition of the phrase prohibited group is too general such that it covers a large number of groups. This implies that Bob, Pamela, and Clive have no cases to answer and should be set free by the court. If the court does not do this then it will also be infringing on the freedom of the people to take part in a peaceful demonstration.
Duffy, James, and John O’Brien. “When interpretation acts require interpretation: Purposive statutory interpretation and criminal liability in Queensland.” UNSWLJ 40 (2017): 952.
Goldsworthy, Daniel. “Seeing the forest for the trees: Statutory interpretation and the new Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Australia national standards.” In AIAL Forum, no. 91, p. 78. Australian Institute of Administrative Law, 2018.
Head, Michael. Administrative law: Context and critique. 2017.
Huggins, Anna. “Executive power in the digital age: Automation, statutory interpretation, and administrative law.” Interpreting executive power: (2020): 111-128.
Hunt, Chris, Lorne Neudorf, and Micah B. Rankin. “Legislating Statutory Interpretation: The Parliamentary Regulation of Judicial Discretion.” Legislating Statutory Interpretation: Perspectives from the Common Law World (2018, Carswell) xi (2018).
McDonald, Barbara. “Legislative intervention in the law of negligence: the common law, statutory interpretation, and tort reform in Australia.” Sydney L. Rev. 27 (2005): 443.
Meagher, Dan. “The ‘Modern Approach to Statutory Interpretation and the Principle of Legality: An Issue of Coherence?.” Federal Law Review 46, no. 3 (2018): 397-425.
Pearce, Dennis C., and Robert Stanley Geddes. Statutory interpretation in Australia. LexisNexis Butterworths, 2014.
Zeller, Bruno, and Camilla Andersen. “The Transnational Dimension of Statutory Interpretation-Tragically Overlooked in a Global Commercial Environment.” NJCL (2019): 5.
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 137 S. Ct. 1144, 581 U.S., 197 L. Ed. 2d 442 (2017).
Lexmark Intern., Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc., 816 F.3d 721 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
MATTER OF WARRANT SEARCH CERTAIN E-MAIL, 829 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2016).
RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090, 195 L. Ed. 2d 476, 579 U.S. (2016).
Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, 137 S. Ct. 1002, 197 L. Ed. 2d 354, 580 U.S. (2017).
WESTERNGECO LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 138 S. Ct. 2129, 201 L. Ed. 2d 584 (2018).
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
