Sample Statutory Interpretation Assignment

This sample assignment is based on an actual student’s script with marker’s comments in LAW100.
The student was awarded an HD for this assignment. No identifying details of the author or marker
are contained in the script but both the author and marker have kindly consented for this
assignment and the marking comments to be used as a sample. The assignment instructions and
question are extracted below.
The marker’s in-text comments appear in the blue call-out boxes. The marker’s general comments
appear at the end of the assignment after the bibliography.
Please note:
(1) The required style for this assignment was AGLC3. You should ensure you are familiar with
the required style guide for your work.
(2) This is not the only way to write a response to the assignment that could earn an HD.

Assignment details
Unit: LAW100 – Introduction to Legal Systems and Methods

Assessment type: Statutory Interpretation

Must Complete: Yes

Weight: 30%

Length: 1500 words (The word count excludes all footnotes unless some footnotes go beyond
providing references and instead contain discussion).

Assignment Question:

You have recently been employed as a solicitor by the White Pearl Solicitors, Canberra (ACT). On 12
December, a partner of the firm gives you the following notes. The information contained in these
notes is accurate.

Jim Depp is a famous American actor from Las Vegas (NV). He is in Melbourne (VIC) filming his new
movie Pirates of the South Pacific. On 2 December, Jim drove to Canberra (ACT) for a weekend
getaway with his wife Aimee Depp, their two-year old son Robert Depp, and their 4-year old
Chihuahua (dog) Bonita.

The family arrived in Canberra in the afternoon of 2 December. Jim was very tired after the long
drive so he decided to stay in the hotel room. Aimee needed to buy some milk for Robert. She also
needed to get a couple of other things for Jim and herself. She drove to Trader Cole’s for grocery
shopping. Robert and Bonita went with her.

By the time Aimee got to Trader Cole’s, the parking lot was completely full. Aimee was not able to
find a spot anywhere close. Instead, she parked a few blocks away in a residential neighbourhood
and walked to Trader Cole’s with Robert and Bonita. Within an hour, Aimee finished shopping at
Trade Cole’s. She got all the groceries she needed for the weekend. She pushed the shopping trolley
to where she parked and unloaded all the bags into the trunk. It was an unusual hot day for early
December. Robert was not feeling well and started crying. He refused to walk back and return the
trolley with his mom. Aimee was debating what she should do. On the one hand, she did not want to
leave Robert and Bonita alone in the car. On the other hand, she was aware of the sign near the
Trader Cole’s customer exits, stating ‘under the Litter Act 2004 fines can apply for taking, using or
leaving a shopping trolley outside this shopping centre precinct’. Looking at the crying boy, Aimee
decided to park the trolley at the edge of the road, making sure it would not slide and hit people.
Meanwhile, she called the customer service of Trader Cole’s, apologizing for leaving the trolley a few
blocks away from the shopping centre. Trader Cole’s agreed to send staff over to pick up the trolley.
Aimee got into the car with Robert and Bonita. They were about to leave. Police officer McGarrett
saw what Aimee did and stopped her. Officer McGarrett gave Aimee a written direction to return the
trolley to Trader Cole’s. Officer McGarrett further explained that according to s 24D of the Litter Act
2004 (ACT) (the Act), it is a strict liability offence if Aimee does not comply with the direction.
Aimee refused to return the trolley to Trader Cole’s. She told Officer McGarrett that she had called
the customer service and the trolley would be picked up by Trader Cole’s staff soon. Officer
McGarrett issued Aimee an infringement notice for non-compliance.

In the morning of Saturday, 3 December, Jim and his family went to Commonwealth Park for a walk.
While they were walking through the park, Jim saw an ice cream truck that sells regular ice cream
and fruit bars, and deep-fried ice cream. Aimee got three pieces of deep-fried cookie dough ice
cream for herself. Jim bought himself and Robert frozen fruit bars. Aimee finished her favourite
deep-fried cookie dough ice cream and tossed the paper snack tray onto the top of a full rubbish bin.
After Aimee had walked away, a gust of wind picked the tray from the top of the rubbish bin and it
gently floated onto the nearby grass in the park. As the family continued walking, Jim finished his
frozen fruit bar and threw the stick over the fence into a person’s backyard. Police Officer Kim saw
what they did and fined both Aimee and Jim. Aimee was fined under s 8(2) of the Act in respect to
the paper food tray. Jim was fined under s 8 (1) of the Act in respect to the fruit bar stick.

Please consult the Litter Act 2004 (ACT). You may also wish to consult Legislation Act 2001 (ACT).
Then write me a memorandum, dealing with the following matters, taking care to set out each step
of your reasoning and to include references to relevant provisions of the Act. Please identify and
keep separate each part of the memorandum. If a question raises an issue that you have already
discussed, simply cross-refer to the earlier discussion.

(a) Has Aimee’s conduct in regards to the Trader Cole’s trolley contravened s 24D of the Litter
Act 2004 (ACT)? Discuss the possible arguments from both Aimee and Officer McGarrett. (10
marks)
(b) Has Aimee breached s 8(2) of the Act? Discuss the possible arguments from both Aimee and
Officer Kim. (10 marks)
(c) Has Jim breached s 8(1) of the Act? Discuss the possible arguments from both Jim and
Officer Kim. (10 marks)

Hint: begin by breaking the section into its constituent parts. For an offence to be committed all
parts of an offence must be proved.
LAW100 Assignment – Statutory Analysis
Word Count: 1495

MEMORANDUM

Weinberg JA said begin and end with the Act’s text and structure, read in
context, and consider the purpose – I use that approach.1 Marker’s comment: Good quote
from Weinberg JA.
I AIMEE AND SECTION 24D

Materially, Aimee committed an offence leaving the trolley, 2 and was issued a
direction to return it. Aimee believed she had complied with that direction,
while Officer McGarrett believed she had not, and gave her a notice. Aimee
has the evidentiary burden, and can raise two issues:

a) That she complied with the Act;3 and

b) Officer McGarrett was unreasonable.4

A Compliance

1 Aimee

(a) Text

Section 24D(3) requires compliance with the direction to "return" the trolley.
The plain meaning of “return” is, “1. go or come back, as to a former place, …;
2. revert to a former owner.”5 Aimee complied by arranging the trolley’s
“return” by its owner, Trader Cole’s.

1
S M v R [2013] VSCA 342, 50.
2
Litter Act 2004 (ACT) s 24D(1)(a)(iii).
3
Ibid s 24D(3).
4
Ibid s 24D(5).
5
Macquarie Dictionary (MacMillan, 6th ed, 2013) ‘return’.
(b) Context

Return is required to avoid the s 24D(1) offence: take from, 6 use outside of,7 or
leave outside of,8 the retailer's precinct. Aimee arranged the trolley’s return to
the bounds of the retailer's precinct.
Marker’s comment: Good
(c) Purpose interpretation of 'return'.

A statutory purposive approach to s 24, using the ACT equivalent to s 15AA,9

shows the purpose reflected in s 24G’s title “… keep shopping trolleys within
Marker’s comment:
shopping centre precinct,” and s 24’s emphasis on a trolley containment Aimee's argument
system “designed to reduce the number of ... trolleys taken out of the … 24D(1)(b)(ii)
S24D (1)(b)(ii) could be
precinct,”10 which applies to both customers,11 and retailers.12 another argument in favour
of Aimee, although it is not
A common law purposive approach,13 14 shows the mischief addressed by the as strong as S24D(5) and it
doesn’t cover the third of
Act is leaving trolleys outside shopping precincts. Statutory or common law
the fence under s 24D (1)
approach, Aimee’s arrangement complies with the Act's purpose. (a) (iii).
According to s24D (1)(b) (ii)
2 Officer McGarrett ‘…for paragraph (a) (i) and
(ii), the person is not … a
(a) Text person authorised by the
retailer to do the things
Section 24D(3) requires a person to “comply” with the direction given. The mentioned in para. (a) (i)
and (ii).
plain meaning of “comply” is, “in accordance with (government
Aimee could argue that she
regulations).”15 The regulation is the direction to return the trolley, the offence had contacted Trade Cole’s
customer service.
is to “leave” the trolley.16 The plain meaning of “leave” is: Customer service agreed to
send staff over to pick up
4. let (a thing) remain for action or decision; 5. allow to remain in the the trolley. This could be
same place, condition, etc.17 interpreted as Aimee was
authorised by the retailer
to do the things mentioned
in para. (a) (i) and (ii).

6
Litter Act 2004 (ACT) s 24D(1)(a)(i).
7
Ibid s 24D(1)(a)(ii).
8
Ibid s 24D(1)(a)(iii).
9
Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s 139.
10
Litter Act 2004 (ACT) s 24G(3)-(4).
11
Ibid s 24D.
12
Ibid s 24G.
13
Heydon’s Case (1584) 76 ER 637.
14
Miller v Commonwealth (1904) 1 CLR 668.
15
Macquarie Dictionary, above n 5 ‘comply’.
16
Litter Act 2004 (ACT) s 24D(1)(a)(iii).
17
Macquarie Dictionary, above n 5 ‘leave’.
Aimee did leave the trolley, "in the same place," "for action" by Trader Cole’s.

(b) Context

Giving “direction” is the primary means of obtaining compliance with the Act;
it applies to both consumers18 and retailers,19 for shopping trolleys,20 and litter
in general.21 Aimee clearly stated she would not comply with the direction to
return the trolley.

(c) Purpose

Parliament intended the Act to be both retributive and preventative. If Aimee's

declaration of non-conformance with the order is left unpunished neither
purpose will be achieved.

3 Conclusion

The arguments are about equal regarding context, but Aimee makes a stronger
Marker’s comment:
case for compliance with the purpose of the Act, whereas McGarrett makes a Very good point.
stronger case for non-compliance per a literal interpretation of the Act.

B Unreasonableness

1 Aimee

(a) Text

Section 24D(5) says notice should not be given "unreasonably." When

interpreted consistently with other uses of “reasonable” in law this means,
according to the standards of an ordinary person in the circumstances.
Evidence shows it was an unusually hot day for early December, Aimee was
some distance from the precinct, she had a crying boy in the car, and gave a
Marker’s comment:
reasonable solution for returning the trolley, "soon." The dictionary defines Very good discussion.
Well done!
“unreasonable” as, “not agreeable or unwilling to listen."22 McGarrett behaved
unreasonably: he did not consider the circumstances, and did not listen to or
accept Aimee’s arrangement with Trader Cole’s.

18
Litter Act 2004 (ACT) s 24D.
19
Ibid s 24I.
20
Ibid s 24.
21
Ibid s 21.
22
Macquarie Dictionary, above n 5 ‘unreasonable’.
(b) Context

The only balance to the rigid conditions applied by s 24D is sub-section (5),
thus “reasonableness” must be a priority.

(c) Purpose

The Act’s purpose is to constrain trolleys to the retailer's precinct whenever Marker’s comment:
possible, Aimee’s arrangement met this purpose, and McGarrett was Good.

unreasonable to not accept it.

2 Officer McGarrett

(a) Text
Marker’s comment: You
McGarrett acted reasonably by explaining the implication of a statutory seem to be conflating
offence. Asking Aimee to return the trolley, a short distance of a few blocks, ‘strict liability’ with the
presumption of
was a reasonable request. If s 24D(5) is unclear, the presumption that penal interpretation that
23 ‘penal provisions are
provisions should be construed strictly supports McGarrett's actions as
strictly construed’. The
reasonable.
former means the
(b) Context prosecution doesn’t
have to prove an
Section 24D(6)(b) specifies a direction does provide for a “reasonable time” to intention to do the
unlawful act. The latter
comply, but Aimee, unreasonably, did not want to comply. works in favour of the
accused person, Aimee.
(c) Purpose
If there is any ambiguity
The Act’s purpose is to encourage people to act responsibly by returning a in the meaning of a
penal provision, the
trolley rather than leaving it outside the precinct. A retailer cannot be expected presumption says that
to retrieve everyone’s trolley, so McGarrett’s actions were a reasonable way to the court should allow
the ambiguity to favour
meet the Act’s purpose. the accused.
3 Conclusion

Aimee's case seems stronger (more “reasonable”), especially given the

circumstances, and McGarrett appears unreasonable for refusing to accept
Aimee's arrangement. Aimee could also point out that construing penal

23
Murphy v Farmer (1988) 165 CLR 19, 28–29.
 Marker’s comment: See
provisions strictly is subservient to a purposive approach, only to be used as a comments above. Both
purpose and the
last resort.24
presumption to
construe penal
provisions strictly would
work in Aimee’s favour.

24
Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569, 576.
 II AIMEE AND SECTION 8(2)

A Issues

The facts show Aimee tossed her paper tray onto a full rubbish bin, a potential
offence because the wind blew it onto the grass in the park. Aimee can raise Marker’s comment:
the issue whether the tray "escaped" from the bin. Very good.

B Rules

Section 8(2) makes it an offence if the litter "escapes into or onto a public
space." Marker’s comment:
Good discussion. Aimee
C Analysis also could argue that
there is ambiguity in the
1 Aimee plain meaning of s
8(2) of the Act as the
(a) Text words apply whenever a
person puts rubbish in a
The dictionary defines "escape" as: "1. get away, as from confinement; 3. issue bin, intending that the
rubbish go in the bin.
from a confining enclosure."25 The tray was never confined in the rubbish bin
However, in her case, as
as it was full, thus it cannot have "escaped." the bin was full, the
rubbish escaped into a
(b) Context public place. She could
suggest that this led to
Section 8(4)(a) allows placing litter in public places where there is a garbage an unfair or
unreasonable result, as
collection service.
the ‘escape’ of the
rubbish was out of her
(c) Purpose
control.
The Act’s purpose is to “enhance the natural and built environment…” keeping
public spaces tidy. Aimee complied with the Act’s purpose by putting her litter
Marker’s comment: Good
into a garbage bin, but the government has the responsibility to empty the bins discussion. Also, in the
absence of any other
often enough to meet the Act’s purpose. evidence, Aimee could argue
that the purpose of the
2 Officer Kim section was to deter people
from disposing of their
(a) Text rubbish in inappropriate
ways, and that the court
The Act’s Dictionary defines "escape" as: "into or onto a public place, should read the section down
to only cover intentional acts
including fall, descend, and percolate, be blown or washed."2626 This list of of littering. She might try to
argue that the intention of
parliament was not to punish
persons such as herself, who
did place their rubbish in a
25
Macquarie Dictionary, above n 5 ‘escape’. bin, but because it was full,
26
Litter Act 2004 (ACT) Part 5 Dictionary ‘escape’. the rubbish blew out of the
bin into a public place. As you
said, she could argue that
government has the
responsibility to empty the
bins.
examples of escape are not limited to issuing from confinement, as Aimee
argues, and Aimee's tray was blown, a specific example in the Act.

(b) Context

Section 8(3)(b) requires litter to be placed in a bin of adequate volume for the
litter, a full bin does not satisfy this.

(c) Purpose
Marker’s comment:
The Act’s purpose is to encourage people not to litter, which in the absence of Very good.
a bin, or presence of a full bin, means taking their waste with them to dispose
in a place and manner that is not littering, as implied by s 8(3)(b).

D Conclusion

Aimee's case is weak, and debatable whether she has she satisfied the
evidentiary burden.

Officer Kim's case is strong, especially considering the Act’s dictionary

definition for "escape."
 III JIM AND S 8(1)

A Issues

The facts show Jim threw his stick over a fence into a private yard, yet was
charged with littering at a public place. Jim can raise the issue whether his
action falls within the Act.

B Rules

Section 8(1) says, “a person must not deposit litter at a public place.” 27 The
Act's Dictionary28 defines a public place as, "a place to which the public, or a
section of the public, has access…"

C Analysis

1 Jim

(a) Text

The terms, “public place,” and “public access” form a circular reference which
can be resolved by interpreting the ordinary meaning of the words. The
dictionary defines public as, “people as a whole, the community," and refers to
a public space as “one open to all … maintained at public expense.”29 A
private yard is not open to the community, or people as a whole, and is not
supported by the public purse.

The principle, expressio unius est exclusio alterius suggests Parliament’s

explicit application of littering to a public place implicitly excludes private
places.

(b) Context

This public/private distinction is further supported by the presumption that

statute will not conflict with the common law right to property. 30 31

(c) Purpose

27
Ibid s 8(1).
28
Ibid Part 5, Dictionary.
29
Macquarie Dictionary, above n 5 ‘public’.
30
Potter v Mineham (1908) 7 CLR 277, 304.
31
Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 208 ALR 124, 130.
The Act’s purpose is defined in Part 2 as “regulating the depositing of Marker’s comment:
Very good.
litter…”32 The offences are defined in Part 3, and all refer to littering in a
“public place.”

2 Officer Kim

(a) Text

Using the normal meaning of words, a private yard is "a place," its owner and
their guests are "a section of the public," who have access to it, thus a private
yard still qualifies as a "public space."

(b) Context

Jim’s litter affected some section of the public, and “relating to, or affecting…
the community” appears in the dictionary definition of “public.”33

(c) Purpose

Jim's stick is litter, specifically "waste" which can become litter, e.g. by being
blown or washed into the park from the private yard. Regulating Jim's litter
falls within the purpose of the Act.

D Conclusion

Officer Kim's case is based upon a strained interpretation of the text and Marker’s comment:
purpose of the Act. Jim appears to have a stronger case: essentially that the Act Well done.

distinguishes public and private spaces, and while it may be an offence to the
private person who owns the yard, his act was not an offence against the
public, or in a public place.

32
Litter Act 2004 (ACT) s 6(a).
33
Macquarie Dictionary, above n 5 ‘public’.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Articles/Books/Reports

Macquarie Dictionary (MacMillan, 6th ed, 2013)

B Cases

Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 208 ALR 124

Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569

Heydon’s Case (1584) 76 ER 637

Miller v Commonwealth (1904) 1 CLR 668

Murphy v Farmer (1988) 165 CLR 19

Potter v Mineham (1908) 7 CLR 277

S M v R [2013] VSCA 342

C Legislation

Legislation Act 2001 (ACT)

Litter Act 2004 (ACT)

Marks: 27/30
Marker’s General comments:
Your paper is well-structured. Very easy to follow. You identified all the issues.
You clearly understood how to apply the law back to the facts. I truly enjoyed
reading your paper. Well done!