LWZ115 Interpretation of Statues Assignment Sample

Legal Processes Case Analysis

Issue

• Whether Bob can be charged under section 3, section 5 and section 7 of the Firearm restriction (Terrorist Organization) Act 2020.
• Whether Pamela can be charged under affection 3 and section 4 of the firearm restriction (Terrorist Organization Act) 2020.
• Whether Clive can be charged under section 3 and section 7 of the (Terrorist Organization Act) 2020.

Rule

Acts Interpretation Act, 1901

Application

In the lights of the present facts and circumstances of the case, it has been held that the cops have charged Bob under section 3, section 5, and section 7 of the Terrorist Organizations Act 2020. Section 3 of the act, any person who is a member of a prohibited group is guilty of an offense and according to section to which talks about the definition of the prohibited group suggest the fact that a group which has been established to further any ideologies of politics, religious or any other ideological ideals descriptively or violently. Bob in the present case cannot be considered as a member of a prohibited group because the facts suggest that Bob has been a part of the Annual Cattle Herders and Graziers Association conference. The police investigated that the association under which Bob was part of was only planning to have a protest against gas mining lease over the properties of farming.

The group has only decided to set up a picket before the headquarters of Mines R US Pty. Ltd. A picket is a form of gathering outside any workplace or venue as a form of protest by pleading the organization to perform a specific duty. The fact that holding playcards and chanting slogans can never be considered as an activity of violence or description under any circumstances. So therefore if according to section 2 of the act, the activity of the association does not form and categorized under the prohibited group then accordingly what cannot be charged under section 31. Section 3 talks about a member of a prohibited group who can be guilty of an offense and by taking defense applying the fact to section 2 of the act, it can be said that was not a member of a prohibited group2.

So far as section 5 is concerned, it is important to note that Bob owned an air rifle. Air rifle is not at all a lethal weapon and cannot kill any human being. However, only e minor body injuries can be caused by using the air rifle. Most of the air rifles do not have the caliber of that amount which requires a license. Whenever any airgun is is less than 5.6 mm and has an energy of fewer than 8 joules then the same cannot be considered under the category of firearms. The facts of the case are completely silent regarding the power of air rifle which was confiscated from Bob in the present case. Therefore the position of an air rifle by Bob cannot be considered as lethal. Similarly, when the air rifle cannot be considered as a firearm without checking the power, Bob cannot be charged under section 5 which talks about possession of firearms by prohibited groups.

Moreover as stated before that Bob cannot be charged under section 3 of the act because he is not a member of a prohibited group as the association was not involved under any violent or disruptive activities3. Picket cannot be considered as an activity of violence as the facts are completely silent regarding any action at the part of the association which can likely to cause physical harm to anybody. Bob can also not be charged under section 7 of the Terrorist Organizations Act 2020 because this section talks about obstruction of a police officer by any person who stops a police officer to exercise his duty under section 6. Section 6 talks about the confiscation of firearms by police. However, in the present facts and circumstances, the confiscation made by the police was of an air rifle that cannot be considered as a firearm unless its power has been checked, which has not happened in the present case. Therefore it can be said that section 7 and section 6 of the Terrorist Organization Acts interrelated with each other and when Bob cannot be charged for carrying a firearm because he was carrying a mere air rifle which is not lethal.

For considering the case of Pamela, the police cannot charge for under section 3 of section 4 of the Terrorist Organization Act 2020. Section 3 talks about a member of a prohibited group and it is already stated that annual cattle herders and graziers association conference is not a prohibited group because it was not engaged in any violent or disruptive activities and it only had a male intention of putting its grievances regarding the gas mining lease concerning the properties of farming. The protest does not have any intention of triggering or intimidating any authority by using any violent or disruptive activities.

Therefore when the association itself is not a private group then even if Pamela is a member of those associations she cannot be charged under section 3 because section 3 talks about offense by a person who is a member of a prohibited group. Therefore on this ground Pamela cannot be charged under section 3 of the Terrorist Organization Act 20204. Now section 4 talks about funding activities of a prohibited group. Section 4 talks about the role of any person who is involved in any funding activities of a habitat group will be guilty of an offense. The association cannot be categorized under a prohibited group by taking in regards it's the intention and the activity like Pickett which nowhere involves in the activity of violence. Pamela stated that she has funded the conference by getting impressed with the event. This suggests that the activities of the event over ethical and in the interest of the farmers which had made Pamela provide funds to the association. Pamela had whatsoever no interaction with any member of the association. Hence it can be said that Pamela cannot be charged under section 4 of the Act on the fact that she had not funded any prohibited group because the activities of association do not fall under that category.

Now Clive is Bob's friend who is also the CEO of the annual cattle herders and graziers association conference and he was charged under section 3 and section 7 of the Terrorist organizations Act 20205. Firstly Clive cannot be charged under section history of the act because he is not a member of a prohibited group. He was the CEO of the association and it has already been established that the association cannot be categorized under the prohibited group because the activities under which the members were involved does not have the intention of creating a nuisance, disruption for any violent behavior with any member of the authorities of the public in general. On this ground, Clive cannot be charged under section 3 because he was a member of the association which is not a probated group therefore he is not guilty of any offense under this section of the act.

Section 7 of the Terrorist Organizations Act is concerned, life cannot be charged under that as well6. Clive had witnessed the entire incident where he had yelled out at Bob when he saw that the cops had caught hold of him and trying to seize the air rifle which was not at all lethal and cannot be categorized under the firearm category. So here the only intention of Clive was to help out his friend from unnecessary interference by the police officer. Clive was aware of the fact that the cops had misunderstood the position of an air rifle by bob and therefore they had grabbed his friend. The only intention of Clive was to help Bob and shouting Bob to run was a mere reflex action. This activity of the CEO of association cannot make him liable to be charged under section 7 of the terrorist organizations act 2020. Section 7 and section 6 of the earth are interrelated to each other. Section 7 talked about the obstruction of a police officer when the officer is exercising his or her duty under section 6 of the Terrorist Organizations Act, 20207. Section 6 the Act talks about the confiscation of firearms by the cops. In the light of the present facts and circumstances of the case, Bob was under the possession of a mere air rifle which cannot be considered as a firearm. On this ground section 6 is negated and if sections it is not applied under section 7 then on this ground Clive cannot be made liable or charged under section 7 of the act8. The police officer was not exercising his duty under section 6 because the firearm was not possessed by Bob in the present case.

The Interpretation Act section 20 talks about the construction of the statutory interpretation. Under this section, it has been mentioned that any expression or words provided in the provisions of the statutory interpretation for any Act will be we applied under the same sense and interpretation for which the instrument has been made. This Act has been formulated to curb down any acts of violence or intimidation in the society of Australia. And the prohibition of firearms has been focused on the act of firearm restriction bill 2020. Bob does not carry any firearm and the association under which Bob was a member does not has any intention of triggering whatsoever violence or intermediation in the society of Australia.

In Amalgamated Society of Engineers v The Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd 9(1920), The court held that the fundamental rule which revolves around the interpretation of statutes suggest that the interpretation must be made in keeping Reliance the intention of the parliament which had made that particular provision of the act. The language can be taken in the ordinary sense to avoid any inconvenience or complexity in the rulings of the provision10. The application of literal rule comes into a picture where it is suggested that the intention of the legislature is the principal behind the interpretation so that ambiguous interpretation can be avoided. This is also known as a golden rule which is also adopted in the case of Grey v Pearson11 and in Australian Boot Trade Federation v Whybrow & Co12 (1910). The rule of language is heavily considered by many rulings with suggested every rule is subordinate to literal rule. In the case of attorney general vs brown, it has been contended that provision will extend to the importation of arms, gunpowder, and any other goods. Here any other gods will not extend to pyrogallic acid. Similarly air rifle cannot be extended to firearms.

Conclusion on Legal Processes Case Analysis

Section 23 of the Interpretations Act, talks about parts and speech in the provisions of the Acts and whenever a word is used in the provision which provides the particular meaning then the other words and its corresponding meanings must also be taken care of while interpreting the intent of the legislation13. Section 6 and section 7 of the Terrorist Organizations Act are interrelated with each other and the words like prohibited group played a major role in determining that the activities under which the association was engaged in does not contain any violence and therefore the same cannot be categorized under the prohibited group.

The Interpretations Act 1901 of section 22 which talks about the meaning of certain words will also be applied in the light of the present facts and circumstances of the case14. This section talks about that the expressions of the words provided under the provisions will be applied unless any contrary intention appears. The meaning of prohibited group has been provided under section 2 in the definitions of the prohibited group. Those associations will be categorized under the private group that is engaged under any activities of violence on hatred. Any other contrary intention does not appear in the provisions of the Act.

Bibliography for Legal Processes Case Analysis

Legislation/Acts

Section 23 of the Interpretations Act

Interpretations Act 1901 of section 22

Section 6 of the Terrorist Organizations Act, 2020

Section 3, 4 and section 7 (Terrorist Organization) Act 2020

Section 2 (Terrorist Organization) Act 2020

Section 5 (Terrorist Organization) Act 2020

Cases

Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd [1996] HCA 36

Grey v. Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cases 61

Australian Boot Trade Employés' Federation v Whybrow & Co - [1910] HCA 53 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v The Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129, HCA 54

Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law Assignment Help

Check This Out

The Role of Law Reform Commission in Australia

Tips For Writing The Best Law Assignments Instantly