LWZ115 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Purposive Approach, Owen Dixon, Statutory Interpretation
- See also Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009)
239 CLR 27
“This court has stated on many occasions that the task of statutory construction must
begin with a consideration of the text itself. Historical considerations and extrinsic
materials cannot be relied on to displace the clear meaning of the text. The language
which has actually been employed in the text of legislation is the surest guide to
legislative intention. The meaning of the text may require consideration of the
context, which includes the general purpose and policy of a provision, in particular
the mischief it is seeking to remedy.”
Limitations (cont)
Kirby P in Avel v Attorney General of NSW (1987) 11 NSWLR 126:
“The legislation relevant to the present appeal… does nothing to add to the coherency of this
body of law. It is a jumble of ill-matched poorly integrated enactments. If there is now to be
found a common thread at all it would seem to be revenue raising.
The conclusion suggests that the only safe approach to the construction of the web of
applicable legislation is an attention to the literal words of the legislation. A ‘purposive’
approach founders in the shallows of a multitude of obscure, uncertain and even apparently
conflicting purposes.”
Limitations (cont)
Carr v Western Australia (2007) 232 CLR 138 at 143 per Gleeson CJ:
[I]t may be said that the underlying purpose of an Income Tax Assessment Act is to raise
revenue for government. No one would seriously suggest that s15AA of the Acts
Interpretation Act has the result that all federal income tax legislation is to be construed so
as to advance that purpose. Interpretation of income tax legislation commonly raises
questions as to how far the legislation goes in pursuit of the purpose of raising revenue. In
some cases, there may be found in the text, or in relevant extrinsic materials, an indication of
a more specific purpose which helps answer the question. In other cases, there may be no
available indication of a more specific purpose.
Carr v Western Australia (2007) 232 CLR 138
Criminal Code (WA) s570D
Accused's admissions in serious cases inadmissible unless videotaped
(1) In this section -
'admission' means an admission made by a suspect to a member of the Police Force
... whether the admission is by spoken words or by acts or otherwise;
‘videotape’ means “any videotape on which is recorded an interview ...”.
(2) On the trial of an accused person for a serious offence, evidence of an
admission by the accused person shall not be admissible unless – (a) the
evidence is a videotape on which is a recording of the admission.
Introduction to IRAC
Deal with preliminary matters first
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
I= Issues (sub issues as headings), R=Rules, A=Application, C=Conclusion
Sub issue 1?
Rule
Application
Conclusion
Sub issue 2?
Rule
Application
Conclusion
Context
Words are generally to be given their ‘natural and ordinary’ meaning.
Natural and ordinary meaning will always be influenced by the context of the words.
Context of the statute includes the wider provisions of the statute and the purpose of
the provision being constructed.
R v Wilson; Ex Parte Kisch (1934)52 CLR 234
R v Wilson; Ex Parte Kisch (1934) 52 CLR 234 at 244:
“The rules of interpretation require us to take expressions in their context, and to
construe them with proper regard to the subject matter with which the instrument
deals and the objects it seeks to achieve, so as to arrive at the meaning attached to
them by those who use them.” per Dixon J
What is the context?
The act should be read as a whole- Scott v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1966)
117 CLR 514
Should be considered at first instance- K & S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon
& Gotch Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 309
Context should be considered at the first instance
Should be considered at first instance- K & S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon
& Gotch Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 309
•Mason J:
“Problems of legal interpretation are not solved satisfactorily by ritual
incantations which emphasize the clarity of meaning which words have when viewed
in isolation, divorced from their context. The modern approach to interpretation insists
that the context be considered in the first instance, especially in the case of general
words, and not merely at some later stage when ambiguity might be thought to arise.”
[at 514]
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
See also alcan (nt) alumina pty ltd v commissioner of territory revenue (2009) This court has stated on many occasions that the task of statutory construction must begin with a consideration of the text itself. Historical considerations and extrinsic materials cannot be relied on to displace the clear meaning of the text. The language which has actually been employed in the text of legislation is the surest guide to legislative intention. The meaning of the text may require consideration of the context, which includes the general purpose and policy of a provision, in particular the mischief it is seeking to remedy. Kirby p in avel v attorney general of nsw (1987) 11 nswlr 126: The legislation relevant to the present appeal does nothing to add to the coherency of this body of law. It is a jumble of ill-matched poorly integrated enactments.
