Issue

Sta)ng
Sta$ng the issue shows precisely what gives rise to the doubt in the applica$on of the law to the
facts.
When sta)ng the issue:
- Don’t just restate the doubt (eg wether orange juice can be a ‘food’)
- Ask instead, what is wrong with calling orange juice ‘food’?
- Then ask what the fundamental characteris)cs of that thing, eg what are the fundamental
characteris)cs of ‘food’?
- Then, does or might (orange juice) share those fundamental characteris)cs of (food) — this is
our NEUTRAL ELEMENT
- Then, why might (orange juice) not share those fundamental characteris)cs of (food) — this is
our DISTINCTION
-
Structure for sta)ng the limbs of the issue:
Noun — eg ‘food’:
Is the (issue word) limited to (neutral element) (dis$nc$on), (narrow limb, party name)
OR
Can it include (neutral element) whether or not (dis$nc$on)? (wide limb, party name)

Verbs in Present Tense — eg ‘sees’:

If a person (issue word) something, is it necessary that they (neutral element) (dis$nc$on), (narrow
limb, party name)
OR
Is it sufficient that they have (neutral element), whether or nor they (dis$nc$on)? (wide limb, party
name)

Verbs in Past Tense — eg ‘played’:

For something to be (issue word) is it necessary that (neutral element) (dis$nc$on), (narrow limb,
party name)
OR
Is it sufficient (neutral element) whether or not they (dis$nc$on)? (wide limb, party name)

Adverbs — eg ‘quickly’:
In order to do something (issue word) is it necessary to (neutral element) (dis$nc$on), (narrow
limb, party name)
OR
Is it sufficient (neutral element) (dis$nc$on)? (wide limb, party name)

Adjec$ves — eg ‘red, tall’:

For something to be (issue word) must it be (neutral element) (dis$nc$on), (narrow limb, party
name)
OR
Is it sufficient that it is (neutral element) (dis$nc$on)? (wide limb, party name)
Dic)onary
Answer Structure:
1. Record the relevant defini)on(s) — same sense + same part of speech
2. Decide whether to look up other words in the defini)on (make sure you don’t go dic)onary
hopping though)
3. State who it supports
4. Say why it supports that side
5. Evaluate the strength of the argument
6. Look at counter arguments
7. Conclude: which defini)on of the two choices (limbs) in the issue statement does the
dic)onary support. The dic)onary may conclusively support one side’s suggested defini)on, it
may tenta)vely support one side, or it may be inconclusive (it may support both sides, or
neither side)

Remember:
Does it exclude the narrow limb — defini$on clearly wider? Or is it inclusive? (WIDE)
Does it exclude the wide limb — defini$ons not addressing the wider dis$nc$on? (NARROW)

Example (Blade)
1. Blade > n.1 the flat curling edge of a knife or other tool or weapon 2. the broad flat part of an
oar, propellor or other object.
2. not necessary with this example
3, 4, 5 and 6.
Defendants Argument Prosecutions Argument

STATE WHO IS SUPPORTS

STATE WHO IS SUPPORTS

- The primary definition fits the narrow limb - The prosecution could argue that the 2nd
precisely, supporting the defence
definition supports the wide limb

SAY WHY IT SUPPORTS THAT SIDE

SAY WHY IT SUPPORTS THAT SIDE

- The primary definition refers to “flat cutting edge
of a knife or other tool or weapon”. This definition
addresses the distinction; it indicates a ‘blade’
must have a cutting edge which would be
capable of cutting or slicing something.
than the sharpness of it.
- The second definition refers to flat broad shapes
that are not sharp, such as the blade of an oar, or
a propellor, it’s therefore arguably the flat shape
of the blade that qualifies it as a ‘blade’ rather

EVALUATE THE STRENGTH OF THE ARGUMENT

EVALUATE THE STRENGTH OF THE ARGUMENT

- The definition fits the narrow limb precisely, and - This argument uses the dictionary definition that
could even be argued to work against the wide is not the most relevant sense to our situation. So
reading — this definition does not allow for the it is not persuasive and the strength of the
inclusion of an edge that is incapable of cutting. argument is weakened.

This makes it a very strong argument for the LOOK AT COUNTER ARGUMENTS

defence and the narrow limb.

- The prosecution has no counter argument

LOOK AT COUNTER ARGUMENTS

- The primary definition holds more weight than the

secondary. Making the narrow limb more
persuasive.
7. Conclusion = All the wide limb has to do is to demonstrate that the wide limb is possible. But
on this occasion the language in definition 1 seems to exclude the wide definition, so the
prosecution has to rely on subsidiary meanings. The defence would place higher emphasis on
sense 1, because it is the most relevant definition, it addresses the distinction, and it reflects the
narrow limb perfectly. The defendant has a better argument.

Example (Supervise)

1. Supervise > v. Observe and direct the execution of (a task or activity) or the work of (a person)

2. Observe > v.1 Notice; perceive. > watch attentively. Detect in the course of scientific study.
Direct > v.1 Control the operation of. > supervise and control (a film, play or other production)
2. Aim in particular direction or at a particular person. > tell or show someone the way. 3. Give
an order to.

3, 4, 5 and 6.

Defendants Argument Prosecutions Argument

STATE WHO IS SUPPORTS

STATE WHO IS SUPPORTS

- John, the defendant, will argue that the definition - The prosecution will counter this, claiming that
supports their wide limb
the definition supports their narrow limb.

SAY WHY IT SUPPORTS THAT SIDE

SAY WHY IT SUPPORTS THAT SIDE

- The dictionary says that, ‘supervise’ means to - The dictionary requires hat someone observe and
“observe and direct," and the primary/first direct. The dictionary definition of ‘observe’
dictionary entry for “observe” is “notice; includes “to watch attentively.” That requires
perceive”. A person can notice or perceive visual contact, being in a position to see
something without seeing it happen. “Observe” something happening. Some may argue that to
includes circumstances where visual contact isn’t “direct” you should be able to see the other
required, eg “detect in the course of scientific person and whats happening. The inclusion of
study.” Therefore supporting the defendants wide ‘observe’ in the definition of ‘supervise’, and the
limb
meaning of ‘observe’ itself (“to watch
EVALUATE THE STRENGTH OF THE ARGUMENT
attentively”), lend support to the prosecutions
- This is a stronger argument for the defence as narrow limb.

they are supported by the majority of the primary EVALUATE THE STRENGTH OF THE ARGUMENT

meanings.
- The dictionary does support that you could
LOOK AT COUNTER ARGUMENTS
possibly direct without being able to see, but
- While “watch attentively” certainly indicates an merely listen. This weakens the strength of their
ability to see/be in visual contact, that is a argument.

SUBSENSE of the meaning (as indicated by the LOOK AT COUNTER ARGUMENTS

arrowhead). - The prosecution has no counter argument

7. Conclusion = The defendant merely has to show that the dictionary supports their proposition,
ie that their wide meaning of “supervise” has some support in the dictionary. The dictionary
definition of “supervise” is “observe and direct,” the definition of “observe” includes non-visual
contact. The dictionary lends support to the defendants wide limb.

Ordinary Usage

Answer Structure

1. Example

2. State which side it helps

3. Explain why — show how it demonstrates that the natural and ordinary meaning of the word in
the sentence is the same as the prosecutions limb of the issue

4. Evaluation

a. Is it normal english with correct grammar?

b. Is the issue word being used in the same sense and the same part of speech?

c. Is the example relevant to the distinction? — is there a meaning being conveyed which helps
you resolve your issue

d. Is the example biased or loaded toward either meaning? if the context of the example makes
it biased such that only one meaning is possible, it is not helpful in resolving the issue. (it’s the
word itself that gives meaning not other words or phrases)

5. Biased? Choice? Anti-loaded?

a. Biased = has context within that points you in a certain direction. A biased example is not
persuasive)

b. Choice = one where the context could support either limb, but the example still favours one
side for whatever reason

c. Anti-loaded = on where the context points you in one direction, but nevertheless still supports
the other side

6. Conclude

Example (Blade)

Resolve using ordinary usage (create an example for each side, explain and evaluate, then
conclude)

1. “The blade had an inscription on it”

2. This ordinary usage example supports the defendant and the narrow limb

3. ‘Blade’ as used in the example, makes me think of a cutting edge rather than a flat surface.
This is because I assume that this blade would cut things and is used for that purpose solely.

4. Evaluation:

a. The example uses normal english with correct grammar

b. The word is being used in the same sense and is in the same part of speech as in the
legislation. That is they are both being used as nouns.

c. The example addresses the distinction as the reader is forced to think of this blade and decide
for themselves whether it was sharp and able to cut things or not

d. na

5. It is a choice example. Both out issue statement limbs are possible. This means we need to
choose the meaning which we think is the most ordinary.

6. This is what makes the example persuasive.

Example (Blade 2.0)

1. “After the baking she let her son lick the blade with chocolate all over it”
2. This ordinary usage example supports the prosecution and the wide limb

3. ‘Blade’ as used in the example, makes us think of a flat edge, with no cutting capabilities. This
is because you would assume that the child would not be licking a blade with a sharp edge.
supporting the wide lab interpretation of ‘blade’

4. Evaluation:

a. The example uses normal english with correct grammar

b. The word is being used in the same sense and is in the same part of speech as in the
legislation. That being both used as nouns

c. The example addressed the distinction of wether a blade needs to be capable of cutting
something. We consider wether it is sharp as the child is licking it. This leads us to our
decision of what limb the example supports.

d. However the example is biased towards the wide limb. The context only allows us to include
the wide limb. This is because we assume that you would not lick the blade if it was sharp.
This makes it less persuasive.

5. It is a biased example as mentioned above

6. To conclude (OVERALL) ordinary usage supports the narrow interpretation of ‘blade’. This is
because the ordinary usage example supporting the narrow limb was far more persuasive. It
proved that in an ordinary sense, a blade must be sharp and able to cut.

Example (Supervision)

1. “I wrote my PhD under the supervision of Professor Plum”

2. This ordinary usage example supports the defendant and the wide interpretation of
‘supervision’

3. Professor Plum would not be watching or be in visual contact, throughout that activity. Indeed
she need not be even be in audio contact. Professor Plum and the student might merely be in
written contact with each other. Nevertheless, during that whole time Professor Plum is
‘supervising,’ the student is under Professor Plums ‘supervision’. If ‘supervision’ is wide
enough to include that scenario (no visual contact and no audio contact), then it is certainly
wide enough to include the scenario of audio contact but no visual contact.

4. Evaluation:

a. Uses normal english with correct grammar

b. The word is maybe not in the same meaning or sense of ‘supervision’. ‘Supervision’ of a one
off task is not the same as supervision of a long project.

c. Both meanings are possible. The example is relevant to the issue.

d. However it may be loaded or biases. No one would expect Professor Plum to watch the
student during the entire duration of their PhD work.

e. However it does show that in ordinary usage ‘supervision’ is possible without visual contact

Example (‘Supervision’ 2.0)

1. “The dean of law supervised us as we sat the LAWS123 test”

2. This ordinary usage example supports the prosecution and the narrow interpretation of
‘supervision’.

3. The example suggests that the Dean was in the room, watching and observing the students,
preventing them from cheating

4. Evaluation:

a. Uses normal english with correct grammar

b. Uses a different version of the word: verb rather than a noun, that weakens the example.

c. Maybe only one meaning is possible? if so it is not persuasive

d. Possibly loaded by “us as we sat”. Compare “the dean of law supervised the LAWS123 test”,
and “the Dean of law supervised us as we sat the LAWS123 test”. The former could include a
situation of the Dean being responsible for the general control of the test, but not actually
watching the students sitting the test. Whereas the latter, by its reference to “us as we sat”,
demands that he’s able to watch the students.

5. It is loaded as mentioned above

6. OVERALL conclusion …

Context

Process

1. Look for other places where the word is used. Do surrounding words help resolve the issue?

2. Look for places where the word is not used, but could have been if the meaning argued for by
one of the parties was correct (eg was a different word used)?

3. Look for places where related topics shed light on the meaning of the issue word

4. Describe the contextual clue you’ve found and where you found it

5. State which side the clue supports

6. Explain why

7. Find counter arguments (eg different difference — expression)

8. Analyse other contextual clues

9. Rules:

a. Noscitur a socciis = the meaning of a word is derived from the words around it

b. Ejusdem generis = where general words follow the particular ones, the general ones are
limited to the same kind as the particular. Usually lists with ‘catch-alls’ at the end eg weapon,
ammunition, equipment, or other thing

c. WE ASSUME WORDS IN A STATUTE ARE USED CONSISTENTLY

10. Conclude which meaning the statute uses

a. On balance, the contextual clue support the defence/prosecution, suggesting that parliament
must have intended a narrow/wide sense of the word “issue word”, restricting it to/extending it
to “distinction”.

The literal rule:

- Under this approach the words of a statute or statutory provision are to be interpreted strictly or
narrowly, according to their ordinary, plain, everyday meaning

- It requires that the Court look as what was said rather than what was meant or intended

- Courts should not look beyond the words actually used in the statute

The golden rule:

- Under this approach the words are considered in the context of the statute as a whole, and are
to be given their literal or ordinary meaning unless to do so would lead to absurdity, anomaly or
injustice — in which case the Court will give the words another meaning consistent with the
context.

- The rationale for the golden rule is that it mitigates the potential harshness or unfairness that
arises from the literal approach

Example (Damages)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Defendant
- Compare s11(1)(b) with s22(1)(b): ‘damages’
is different from “writes, paints, sprays,
marks or in any other manner defaces”. The
latter are all cosmetic. ‘Damages’ therefore is
limited to something which affects the
physical form and shape of the structure.
Prosecution
- Compare s11(1)(b) with s22(1)(b): but ‘etches on’
is also different from ‘damages’. Etching alters
the physical form and shape of the structure.
‘Damages’ therefore can be something else eg
alteration to the appearance but not the physical
form and shape.

This supports the defence and the narrow -

limb

- ‘Damage’ in s44(1): “bullbars protect vehicles

from physical harm”. Supports the
defendants narrow limb.
7. Defendants Rebuttal = “etch on” sits amongst “writes, paints, sprays … marks”. They are non-
physical. “Etch” in that provision is non-physical. Noscitur a sociis = All differ from “damages”, so
“damages” is physical harm.

8. conclude

Example (Affixes)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

(2) = s11(1)(b), 11(2), 33(2), 33(3) and 44(3) use the word “attached”; s22(1)(a) and 44(2) use the
word “affixed”. THUS “attached” and “affixed” have different meanings

Prosecution Defendant
- s11(1)(b), 11(2), 33(2), 33(3) indicate things - Costs are involved in removing things which
which are “attached” AND things which are are “affixed”: s22(2). This suggests that are
“affixed” can be removed. They are them “affixed” things are not temporarily fixed or
temporary fixtures and easy to remove. This easily removed. They have a degree of
supports the prosecutions wide limb
permanence and difficulty in removing. That
- s33(2) and (3): (snow chains are attached supports the defendants narrow limb

only in certain circumstances) — when the
snow level is 1cm or greater — and must be
immediately removed when that level is not
reached. “Immediate removal” indicates that
“attach” does not have a degree of
- s44(2): “affixed” items must be inspected
every 5 years. Suggests a degree of
permanence to their addition to the vehicle,
and/or a degree of difficulty in removing
them. Supports the defendants narrow limb

permanence or any degree of difficulty of - The argument based on 44(2) is supported

removal. Rather it suggests a temporary
fixture which is easy to remove. This
supports the prosecutions wide limb.
every 6 months. Suggests something less
by 44(3). Under s44(3), “attached” items
must be removed, inspected, and reattached
than a degree of permanence to their fixture,
and/or suggests some ease in removing the
thing. Supports the defendant as “affix” =
permanent/not easily removed; whereas
“attach” = less than permanent/easily
removed
7. Prosecutions Rebuttal = The prosecution could rebut the defendants FIRST argument as costs
involved doesn’t necessarily mean that the item is difficult to remove; it simply suggest that
removal requires some expertise or equipment.

8. conclude

Purpose

Structure

1. Under the purposive approach, the words in a statute are to be considered in light of the
purpose of the enactment and if possible given a meaning that is consistent with the purpose
(s5 Interpretation Act 1999, R v Pratt)

2. It seems Parliaments purpose is…

3. As evidenced by (state evidence/theme)

4. Say which limb your argument supports

5. Why?

6. Argue both sides

7. Conclude

Example (knuckledusters)

1. Under the purposive approach, the words in a statute are to be considered in light of the
purpose of the enactment and if possible given a meaning that is consistent with the purpose
(s5 Interpretation Act 1999, R v Pratt)

2. It seems Parliaments purpose is to prohibit carrying weapons in public places, to prohibit

things that are made for curing injury, and to avoid public intimidation.

Prosecution Defendant
- Upholding the purpose would suggest the - The definition of ‘weapon’ specifically refers
wide meaning: to not allow anything which to the item being made to cause injury. This
could be used in fight to be carried in a was made to be a fashion accessory belt
public place. Perhaps also not allow things buckle, not to cause injury. It would not be
that are intimidatory
upholding the purpose of the statute to
- If we allowed narrow, this could significantly criminalise fashion accessories or indeed
undermine the statutory regime. anything that happens to able to cause
Knuckleduster belts could become standard injury.
issue for certain gangs or criminal elements,
who could wear them freely in a public place
without any fear of criminal liability arising.
Allowing knuckledusters to lawfully be used
as belt buckles is contrary to the statutory
purpose and could lead to a proliferation of
prohibited weapons being carried in public
places. Also intimidating the public

7. conclude

Explanatory Notes

The context stage of statutory interpretation we are looking at the surroundings of the Act
as a whole to see if they shed any light on the meaning of our issue word. For example:
- If Parliament has used different language to describe a similar word to our issue word,
this might shed light on the meaning of our issue word.

In regards, to the purpose stage we can use the Act to try to figure out what Parliament's
purpose was. For example:
- A purpose section in the Act might explicitly state what the general purpose of the
statute is, and there might be other internal indications within the statute of what
Parliament's intention was.

Context is about the meaning of a word, and purpose is about Parliament's intent.
BACK OF CM

Dictionary

PROSECUTION EXAMPLE

(record the definition)

The definition of food = “any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink or the
plants absorb in order to maintain life and growth”

(state who it supports)

Supports the Prosecution

(say why, ie why does it support the prosecution)

Because it is a very wide definition of food and specifically includes substances that
people “eat or drink”, showing that food is capable of referring to liquids by themselves (or
which is inconsistent with defence’s narrow interpretation of food to exclude liquid
nutritious substances)

(sometimes you can evaluate the strength of the argument)

As this is the only definition, it offers strong support for the prosecution

(sometimes you can look at counter arguments)

The dictionary definition offers no support to the defence

(conclude)

Prosecution is supported by the dictionary

DEFENDANT EXAMPLE

(record the definition)

Definition 1, subsense of “introduce”: “bring (a plant, animal or disease) to a place for the
first time”…

(state who it supports)

Supports the Defendant

(say why, ie why does it support the defendant)

Because under this definition a thing cannot be introduced unless it is brought to the place
“for the first time”, which is precisely what the defences limb of issue asserts (or which is
inconsistent with the prosecutions contention that things can be introduced when they exist
there already)

(sometimes you can evaluate the strength of the argument)

This is a particularly strong argument because the subsense uses the word in a similar
way as it is used in the statute, which talks of substances being “introduced…in” not
“introduced…to” a place.

(also go onto analyse definition 3)

Definition 3: “insert or bring into something” supports the prosecution, because it

demonstrates that something can be introduced by simply bringing it in, without any
requirement of novelty or newness

Defences Rebuttal: but this definition talks of “inserting” or “bringing into” something not
bringing in somewhere so it is not using the word in the same way as the statute does.
Land is not usually referred to as a ‘thing’.

(conclude)

On balance, the defendant has stronger arguments on dictionary

DICTIONARY - USEFUL PHRASES

- definition ‘X’ supports the prosecution/defendant by effectively setting out exactly the
interpretation the prosecution/defendant is arguing for
- definition ‘X’ supports the prosecution/defendant because the words “……” point
towards a wide/narrow meaning for (the issue word) because they clearly embrace/
exclude (whatever it is)
- definition ‘X’ offers some support to the prosecution/defendant because it refers to “…”
which is inconsistent/consistent with the defendants attempt to narrow the interpretation
of the word to …
- definition ‘X’ is of limited usefulness because it uses the word in a different sense than
the statute does (or different parts of speech/different context/specialist meaning/
intransitive instead of transitive)
- definition ‘X’ offers some support to both sides. While the words “…” suggest (the issue
word) is limited in scope to …, the words “…” suggest it is wide enough to include…
Ordinary Usage

DEFENDANT EXAMPLE

(state the ordinary usage example)

“the fishbowl fell in the kitten basket and the animal was killed”

(state which side it helps)

this example helps the defendant

(explain why)

Because when we hear the word “animal” in the example we are more likely to think it
applies to a kitten not a fish. This shows that when we use the word ‘animal’ in ordinary
conversation we tend to mean a land based animal.

(say whether it used in the same way as it is in the statute)

the example uses the word in the same way the statute does

(evaluate its effectiveness)

This example strongly supports the defendant, it is neutral in that the dead animal may
either be the land based animal to the non-land based animal. Yet we naturally think of the
land based animal. We do so even though it would be more likely in this situation for the
fish to die rather than the kitten. The word ‘animal’ compels us to think fo the kitten.

(conclusion)

Common usage favours the defendant, prosecutions attempts to fins OU examples

demonstrating ‘animal’ can naturally refer to fish-type creatures are strained and self-
serving.
ORDINARY USAGE - USEFUL PHRASES

1. Who does it favour?

- This example favours the prosecution/defendant because it shows that the natural
meaning of the (issue word) extends to include/is restricted to …, which is inconsistent/
consistent with the narrow sense of the word being advocated by the defendant
2. Does is use the word in the same way as the statute?
- yes/no in a better way than this
• It uses the word ‘x’ in a sense when the statute uses it in a ‘y’ sense
• It uses the past tense
• It uses the word as a noun wen the statute uses it as a verb
• It uses the word in abstract sense when the statute uses it in concrete sense
3. Is it neutral or bias?
- This example may not be perfectly neutral, but it least demonstrated that in OU we can
use the (issue word) in its wide/narrow sense
- ANTI-LOADED = Even though the wording of this example is such that we would
normally be driven to think of the wide/narrow meaning of the word (because…) we still
reach the opposite conclusion because it’s so natural to interpret (the issue word) in
such a wide/narrow way. This shows that even in a context that supports the
defendants/prosecutions interpretation we do not naturally use the word in this way
- BIAS = This example is bias/self-serving because although we are driven to think of the
word in its wide/marrow sense favouring the prosecution/defendant it is not the word at
issue that drives us there, it is the words “…”

Context

PROSECUTION EXAMPLE

(describe the contextual clue you’ve found and where you’ve found it)

Section 4(1) refers to the Ministers power to order a private hospital to provide adequate
facilities for sterilising equipment, including facilities involving …”laundering”

(state which side the clue favours)

This strongly supports the Prosecution

(explain why ie demonstrate how the contextual clue shows that parliament intended the
interpretation of the issue word set out in the prosecutions limb of the issue)

Because it shows that parliament clearly intended to include, within its concept of
instruments, things that can be laundered. Fixed and rigid objects cannot be laundered so
parliament rabbit race intended to restrict the meaning of ‘instrument’ to fixed and rigid
objects as suggested by the defendant. Parliament must have intended a wide meaning,
including non-rigid objects capable of being laundered.

(analyse other contextual clues and conclude)

The ejusdem generis rule favours the defendant, but protection winds on context because
it is impossible to reconcile parliaments ice of the words “laundering” and “reels” in
connection with “instruments” with the defendants narrow conception of “instruments”
restricting them to fixed rigid objects.

DEFENDANT EXAMPLE

(describe the contextual clue you’ve found and where you’ve found it)

s42 refers to substances used for “making ammunition”

(state which side the clue favours)

This supports the defence

(explain why ie demonstrate how the contextual clue shows that parliament intended the
interpretation of the issue word set out in the prosecutions limb of the issue)

Because it shows parliament considered 2 different processes of ammunition construction

— “manufacturing” and “making”. It has used different words so it must have intended to
refer to different concepts. Making ammunition seems wider — and could refer to the
construction of ammunition by any process. Defence can argue that manufacturing
ammunition must have a narrower meaning, and could be restricted to ammunition
contracted in a large-scale process — the interpretation favoured by the defendant.

(analyse other contextual clues and conclude)

All the contextual clues favour the defendant, suggesting that parliament must have
intended a narrower sense of the word “manufacturing” restricted to large scale processes.
CONTEXT — USEFUL PHRASES
- Parliament has used 2 different words and therefore must have intended them to have
different meanings. Similar word ‘x’ seems to be narrower/wider than the (issue word) to
extend/be restricted to …
- REBUTTAL = look for other explanations for the distinction other than the one being
suggested, eg the prosecution/defendant can argue that the reason parliament has
used different words has nothing to do with the consideration but instead…
- The issue word is a general word than comes after a string of specific words. Apply the
maxim ejusdem generis the meaning of the general word is coloured by the meanings of
the particular words before it. Therefore the (issue word) only concerns things/actions of
the same types as the preceding words, that is (describe the things/actions). These
specific words demonstrate that parliament intended a restrictive/expansive
interpretation to be placed on the (issue word), so that it is/is not limited to the
interpretation favoured by the defendant.
- The issue word is a general word that comes among a number of specific words.
Applying the maxim noscitur a sociis, the meaning of the general word is coloured by
the particular words around it. Therefore the (issue word) only concerns things/actions
of the same type of the surrounding words. That is (describe the things/actions). These
specific words demonstrate that parliament intended a restrictive/expansive
interpretation to be placed on the (issue word) so that it is/is not limited to the
interpretation favoured by the defendant
- Section ‘X’ uses the (issue word) in connection with the word/s “…”. This shows that
parliament intended the (issue word) to extend/to be restricted to things/actions that (fit
with the other words).
Purpose

THE LITERAL RULE

(state the rule)

Under the literal approach a narrow technical dictionary based interpretation is favoured,
without regard to context, consequences or purpose.

(apply the rule, for the defendant)

Here, the literal meaning of the phrase ‘entitled to vote’ means only those legally allowed
to cast a valid vote. A dead person is not legally allowed to cast a valid vote. So the phrase
should be construed narrowly in favour of the defence: it is not an offence under this
provision to impersonate a dead person.

(another application of the rule, for the prosecution)

The literal meaning of ‘animal’ includes all living creatures, so it should be widely
construed to include sea-based organisms without developed limbs, as the prosecution
argues.

THE GOLDEN RULE

(state the rule)

The golden rule states that where words are ambiguous the court should adopt the
interpretation that does not lead to absurdity, harshness or injustice (Jury v Brasting)

(apply the rule, for the prosecution)

If the word ‘substance’ were limited to items that have no fixed functional shape as the
defence argues, then it would not be an offence to bring firearms, bombs, lock-picks or
knives into prison. This absurd result suggest that a wider interpretation of ‘substance’ —
one that includes objects with fixed functional shapes — should be preferred.

(you may be able to make counter arguments)

Defendant = the prosecutions interception would produce equally as absurd results. If
‘substance’ were to include articles having fixed function shapes, visitors could not bring in
books or photographs for example.

(apply the rule, for the defendant)

If the meaning of the word ‘premises’ were not restricted to land with buildings on it, then it
would include enormous amounts of land: parks, reserves, beaches, forests and the like. It
would be entirely impractical for owners of such land to rid them of vermin. It would be
absurd and oppressive for them to be held crinkly responsible if they did not. This wide
interpretation should be rejected, and the more sensible and workable defendant definition
adopted instead.

THE PURPOSIVE APPROACH (MISCHIEF RULE)

(state the rule)

Under the purposive approach the words in the statute are to be construed in the light of
the purpose of the enactment and if possible, given a meaning that is consistent with that
purpose (s5 Interpretation Act 1999, R v Pratt)

(apply the rule)

The marginal note of s213 is “removal of defence equipment”. Under s5 of the

interpretation act, marginal notes can be taken into account in determining the meaning
and the purpose of the enactment.

(explain what this source says about the purpose)

This suggests that the purpose of the provision is to control the transfer of “defence
equipment”, things that are owned or used by the defence department or at least are
habitually located on their property or used for defence purposes.

(explain how the identified purpose is best advanced by one side of the issue [or would be
frustrated if the other side of the issue was adopted])

A purposive interpretation of the phrase “any weapon, ammunition equipment or other

thing” would narrow the meaning of “other thing” to things owned or used by the defence
department/habitually located on its property/used for defence purposes. It would not
include things that are temporarily there/did not belong to the department or was not used
for defence purposes.
(the application of the rule may involve some guesswork)

The Health Act 1956 seems to be about promoting public health and regulating threats to
public health, including diseases spread by vermin. This purpose is best advanced by
adopting the wide interpretation of ‘premises’ to include vacant land, which may still
contain vermin capable of spreading disease and therefore constitute a threat to public
health.

HOW TO PHRASE OTHER PURPOSIVE ARGUMENTS

- The long title of the Act says…/On introducing the Act to Parliament the Minister said…/
The purpose section of this Act says…
- The precursor to this section was… of the … Act which read … (describe the change,
think about why the change may have been made, and try to extract arguments for
purpose from that)
- The Act contains provision that are clearly aimed at … This demonstrates that
parliament intended the purpose of this law to be… The prosecutions/defendants
interpretation of the word at issue would frustrate/help this purpose because…