reasons for statutory intrepretation

• Intention of Parliament May be Unclear

  Deing v Tarola 1993 (The Studded Belt Case)

  • Victorian Courts had to interpret the word ‘weapon’ to determine if a studded belt constituted a regulated weapon (under the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic)
  • They determined that finding someone guilty of carrying a weapon when all they were doing was wearing a belt could not have been the intention of parliament.
  • This narrowed the meaning of the phrase ‘regulated weapon’, as it would restrict the scope of the law in future applications. 
• Meaning of the Words may be Ambiguous

  Davies v Waldron (1989)

  • A supreme court judge had to interpret the phrase ‘in charge of a motor vehicle’ and ‘start to drive’ as stated in the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic)
  • Waldron’s actions met the statutory definition of ‘starting to drive,’ even though the vehicle had not moved much, and therefore found him guilty due to his intoxication.
• Meaning of Words may Change over Time

  Kevin and Jennifer v Attorney-General for the Commonwealth (2001)

  • The meaning of the word ‘man’ had to be considered, where Kevin and Jennifer’s marriage application was opposed by the Commonwealth because Kevin (alias) was born a woman. 
  • At the time, the Marriage Act 1961 stated that marriage was the union between ‘a man and a woman’. 
  • The judges ruled in favour of Kevin and Jennifer, as it is possible that the word ‘man’ has changed its meaning between 1961 and 2001.