Statutory Presumptions Flashcards
Principle of Legality
Back
Legislation does not have extraterritorial effect
It is presumed that legislation only applies within the jurisdiction of the enacting body. A State or Territory Act applies only within that State or Territory, and a Commonwealth Act applies only within Australia. The presumption can be rebutted by express words or where the legislation would be ineffective otherwise.
Legislation does not take jurisdiction away from the courts
There is a presumption that Parliament does not intend to oust or limit the jurisdiction of courts, particularly superior courts, unless it does so clearly and unambiguously. To rebut the presumption, Parliament must expressly provide for a different forum to exercise jurisdiction over disputes coming before it. This reinforces the separation of powers and the rule of law.
Legislation does not bind the Crown
By default, laws apply to everyone except the Crown, reflecting the separation of powers. Parliament must use clear words to bind the Crown or the context must make it necessary.
Penal provisions are strictly construed
Penal statutes or provisions imposing penalties are interpreted narrowly. Any ambiguity is resolved in favour of the accused, ensuring that penalties apply only where Parliament’s intent is unequivocal.
Remedial or beneficial provisions are broadly construed
Provisions that aim to benefit individuals or rectify a problem are interpreted liberally to achieve the statute’s remedial or beneficial purpose, ensuring that the statute fulfills its intended goals.
Taxation provisions construed to the taxpayer’s benefit
It is a long-standing presumption that a person should only be required to pay tax where the provision creating the obligation does so clearly. Where the meaning of a taxing statute is ambiguous, courts have traditionally favoured interpretations that benefit the taxpayer. However, under the modern purposive approach (especially post-s 15AA AIA), this presumption has diminished in importance. As Gleeson CJ noted: “There was a time, now gone, when it was thought that a strict and narrow interpretation was to be given to taxing Acts.” Courts now focus more on legislative purpose, but still require that tax liability be imposed through clear and unambiguous language.
Legislation enacting a word or phrase approves of its common law interpretation
Certain phrases have, across a progression of common law decisions, developed an agreed, common law meaning. Where such words or phrases, which have accepted meanings at common law, are used in legislation without being expressly defined, courts will presume Parliament intended the common law meaning or methodology for
Legislation does not operate retrospectively
It is a strong presumption that legislation only applies prospectively—i.e., to future conduct or events—and not retroactively. (Properly described as “retroactively,” not “retrospectively.”) Courts presume Parliament does not intend to interfere with vested rights or impose new obligations for past events. This presumption can be rebutted by clear and unambiguous language indicating retrospective intent.
Legislation does not remove property rights
Legislation cannot interfere with or remove property rights unless it expressly provides for such a consequence or where required by the public interest.
Statutes do not conflict one another, and should be able to operate harmoniously
A legislature would not alter a statute that forms part of a collaborative and uniform national scheme, save in express terms.
The crown does not have right of appeal
Where a state loses a case against a private person, it should not have the right to appeal that decision.
Parliament does not intend to deprive a court of the inherent jurisdiction possessed by every court to ensure natural justice is applied
Courts are presumed to retain their inherent jurisdiction, and Parliament does not intend to strip courts of this in the absence of clear legislative intention.
Every offence must contain mens rea, which is imputed even where it is not specifically stated
Mens rea is generally required for all criminal offences, even if not explicitly stated in the legislation.
Parliament intends to legislate in conformity with international law
It is presumed that Parliament enacts legislation in line with international obligations and does not intend to create conflict with international law.
