Chapter 1E: Parliament and Courts

Question 1

What is statutory interpretation?

Answer 1

The courts giving meaning to the words in legislation when resolving a dispute

Question 2

What is abrogation of common law?

Answer 2

When parliament disagrees with a legal principle developed by a court and renders the law invalid by passing legislation

Question 3

What is codification?

Answer 3

The classifying, restating and incorporation of common law into legislation

Question 4

When does codification of common law occur?

Answer 4

When parliament agrees with a principle of common law established by a judge and creates legislation so that it becomes statute law

Question 5

What does parliamentary supremacy refer to?

Answer 5

Parliament is the supreme law-making body, which means they can make, repeal and change any laws within their jurisdiction

Question 6

What does to abrogate or repeal mean?

Answer 6

To remove

Question 7

How were the courts established?

Answer 7

The courts are established by parliament and each court was created by an Act of parliament

Question 8

What is the County Court Act of 1958?

Answer 8

The act of parliament which established the County Court of Victoria

Question 9

What is the primary role of parliament?

Answer 9

To create legislation that promotes social cohesion

Question 10

What is the primary role of the courts?

Answer 10

To apply legislation to resolve disputes

Question 11

What should courts and judges not do?

Answer 11

Express public opinions on political matters

Question 12

What are the reasons for statutory interpretation?

Answer 12

Sections of a statute may be drafted in very broad and general terms, meanings of words may change over time, and parliament makes laws ahead of time so they may be unable to forsee a particular situation

Question 13

What are the effects of statutory interpretation?

Answer 13

The development of an area of law through precedent, the broadening or narrowing of a statute, or legislation being passed which abrogates the court’s interpretation of a statute

Question 14

How can courts influence parliament?

Answer 14

Commenting on existing laws, high profile cases, invalidation of statue law and causing parliament to codify or abrogate common law

Question 15

How do high profile cases influence parliament?

Answer 15

Decisions on these cases attract large public media attention, which can lead to political pressure on the parliament to change statute law

Question 16

How can invalidation of statue law occur?

Answer 16

Courts enforce the division of law-making powers between the states and parliament

Question 17

When does parliament not have the ability to abrogate common law?

Answer 17

On decisions made by the High Court relating to the Constitution

Question 18

Describe the Deing vs Tarola Case of 1993?

Answer 18

Deing was wearing a belt with raised metal studs and arrested
He was found guilty of possessing a regulated weapon
Deing appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court and his conviction was overturned
This was an example of statutory interpretation occurring because broad, general terms were applied to a specific scenario
The Judge in the Supreme Court created a precedent defining the word ‘weapon’

Question 19

Describe the R vs Brislan Case of 1935?

Answer 19

The defendant was charged for being in possession of a wireless radio without a valid licence and was fined
The defendant was charged under the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1905)
She challenged the validity of this legislation, arguing that the law did not include wireless radios
The High Court interpreted the term ‘other like services’ to include wireless radios
This was an example of an unforeseen circumstance occurring in a legislation

Question 20

Describe the Mabo vs Queensland Case of 1992?

Answer 20

Mabo challenged the ‘terra nullius’ law and claimed ownership of land in the Murray Islands
The High Court decided that ‘terra nullius’ was legal fiction and that indigenous ownership of land in Australia, known as native title, could exist
The Commonwealth Parliament codified this decision by passing the Native Title Act (1993)

Question 21

Describe the State Government Insurance Commission vs Trigwell case of 1979?

Answer 21

The Trigwells were injured in a car accident caused by roaming sheep and sued the owners of the sheep for negligence
The High Court decided to follow an old common law principle where a landowner did not owe a duty of care to prevent injury caused by roaming livestock
The Victorian Parliament passed the Wrongs (Animals Straying on Highways) Act in 1984
This is an example of the Victorian Parliament abrogating the common law principle upheld in the Trigwell decision to ensure future cases are not decided in a similar manner