Quick questions on Statutory interpretation and the role of the courts: VCE Legal Studies

Parliament drafts statutes in general terms. Specific facts of a case may not be foreseen. Courts must read the statute to apply it to the case before them. The interpretation chosen becomes a precedent.

In Victoria, the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) s 35(a) requires the court to prefer:

Intrinsic materials (within the Act itself) that the court may use:

Purposive approach. The dominant modern approach. Identify the purpose; choose the interpretation that promotes it.

The Project Blue Sky case (Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355). The High Court interpreted the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) and reaffirmed that statutory interpretation begins with the text and context, with purpose informing the choice between candidate meanings.

Once a court interprets a statute, that interpretation becomes a precedent binding on lower courts in the hierarchy. Parliament can then accept the interpretation (do nothing), codify it (insert express words confirming it), or reverse it (amend the statute to displace it).

The dominant modern approach. Identify the purpose; choose the interpretation that promotes it.

The natural and ordinary meaning of the words is used. Subordinate to purposive interpretation.

Where the literal meaning produces an absurdity, the court may depart slightly to avoid it.

Identifies the "mischief" the Act was passed to correct (from Heydon's Case (1584) 76 ER 637), now largely subsumed within the purposive approach.

A word is interpreted in the light of accompanying words.

Where general words follow specific words, they are interpreted as limited to the same class.

The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others.

The High Court held that the Federal Court could not exercise cross-vested state jurisdiction, requiring close attention to the constitutional and statutory text.