statutory interpretation

Question 1

Noscitur a Sociis

Answer 1

(most common) “words of a feather flock together”
The word is given its meaning by its surrounding words.
Eg: “you must not drive a car, bus, van or vehicle onto this property”
Under NAS you could argue that this should be understood as motor vehicles thus bicycle could be exempt

Question 2

Ejusdem Generis

Answer 2

(similar to nas) Only used when there is a list of similar words followed by a catch-all general phrase. 
Interprets group of similar words as forming a class and the general phrase is limited to this class.
Eg: “sheep, horses, cows, or any other animal must be registered” must you register a snake?
Under EG list creates a class of farm animals so “any other animals” would be limited to farm animals and  not include snakes.

Question 3

Expressio Unius

Answer 3

(rarely used) Argument that if something is not expressly stated then it is excluded.
Eg: ‘punching, kicking, stabbing or attacking someone is illegal’ can you bite them?
Expression unius could argue that since the statute does not say bite then it is not intended to be included

(note: argument not very persuasive as purposive approach tends to trump)

Question 4

Reddendo Singula Singulis

Answer 4

Requires various sections of statue to be joined to respective counterparts: girls and boys become men and women.
Eg: you may be found guilty or innocent if you have committed a crime or you have not committed a crime.
reworded to separate sentences of guilty and innocent.
(note: hard to spot but if there is more than one noun connected to an adjective look for it )

Question 5

Generalia Specialbus

Answer 5

when statues overlap the one that is more specific will take precedence.
geographical eg: laws that cover all of NZ are more general than laws that cover only Auckland.
in Auckland, Auckland laws would take precedence

Question 6

6 step interpretation

Answer 6

1. Identify Problem word or phrase (write out section you will interpret and which word)
2. state and site Section 5(1) of the interpretation act 1999
3. Literal/text approach
4. Purposive interpretation
5. Case Law
6. Conclusions (write how you believe the word must be understood based on previous info)

Question 7

Section 5(1) of the interpretation act 1999

Answer 7

states we are legally required to ascertain the meaning from the text and in light of its purposive

Question 8

Purposive interpretaion

Answer 8

purpose of this law (if judge has stated a purpose of what you consider it to be)
why the law was made in the first place
whether or not this purpose requires it to cover the current situation

Question 9

case law interpretation

Answer 9

Look at previous cases that discuss the word or the case itself
(note: never give case law much weight especially if it is discussing a different statute.)

Question 10

Literal/ text approach:

Any definition inside the act

Answer 10

If there is a definition section inside the act then this must be used to interpret the words meaning.
Eg. If the act says “animal means anything that runs on four legs” then this is the only available meaning in this act. Thus you cannot argue that chickens are animals.

Question 11

Literal/ text approach:

Ordinary or Natural meanings:

Answer 11

Define what you believe an ordinary person would think the word mean.
Eg; the ordinary understanding for the word ‘cake’ would refer to the food. This is preferable over other meanings.

Question 12

Literal/ text approach:

Technical meanings:

Answer 12

Define any alternate meanings a word may have that would be specific to a context.
Eg: when a plumber says something is ‘plumb’ he doesn’t mean the fruit

Question 13

Literal/ text approach:

The context of the act:

Answer 13

Look at the other sections of the act and see if the word is used there in a way which may guide understanding.
Eg: if the cake has been used 3 other times to regarding baked food then it is unlikely to mean something different this time

Question 14

Literal/ text approach:

Grammar:

Answer 14

Words such as ‘or’ ‘not’ ‘and’ ‘shall’ ‘may’ ‘means’ ‘includes’ etc have specific meanings that can help you interpret the meaning.
Eg: New Zealand means the north and south island vs new zealand which includes the north and South island

Question 15

Literal/ text approach:

Canons of the law:

Answer 15

Noscitur a Sociis,
Ejusdem Generis,
Expressio Unius,
Reddendo Singula Singulis,
Generalia Specialubis

Question 16

Literal/ text approach:

Presumptions of the Law/ Implied Expectations:

Answer 16

Can any of these be applied?

Judges assume things when reading statues eg that the parliament wont wipe out our rights

Question 17

Literal/ text approach:

Extrinsic Materials:

Answer 17

Material outside the statue?

Eg: parliamentary debate (Hansard) can sometimes be used to help figure out what parliament intends

Question 18

the presumption

Against legislation being Extra-territorial

Answer 18

Nz law is only applied inside nz, unless clearly stated otherwise.
eg theft in aus wont be charged in nz.
but sex with a minor will be charge no matter where. nz had declared worldwide jurisdiction on Nz citizens for that crime.

Question 19

the presumption

Against infringing International Law

Answer 19

the Parliament did not intend to breach its obligations under interntional law

Question 20

the presumption

That the Crown is Not Bound

Answer 20

unless the start of the act has the words ‘this act binds the crown’ the courts will assume that it is not intended to bind parliamnet

Question 21

***weak presumption

Against Alteration of Common Law

Answer 21

the courts will generally assume that new legislation does not intend to wipe out common law, but rather stand beside it

Question 22

presumption

Against Implied Repeal

Answer 22

statutes are trumps and a court cannot refuse to apply one unless it has clearly been repealed (removed).
if a new statute does not clearly repeal the old one they are assumed to work together not cancel out.

Question 23

**the presumption

Against Statutes having a Retroactive Effect

Answer 23

we assume that statutes will not be used to change the law in the past. Unless parliament clearly gives a statute a retroactive clause, then any act that was legal at the time of doing cannot be charged later

Question 24

the presumption

That you must have Intent for Criminal Liability

Answer 24

courts assume that in order to constitute offence then you must have both criminal intent (mens rea: guilty mind) and criminal action.

(there are many laws which are strictly liability so no intent is required)