Statutory interpretation is a case where the judge is mandated to construe the statute meaning of the clause or words in order to establish and verify how it will be injected in a similar or different case. This is also known is Australia also as the judicial interpretation, and it is frequently formulated and injected to cases as judicial precedents. The judges are mandated to make laws while trying to understand an Act meaning, this is due to the different reasons that make it sometime unclear of how to exercise the Act, one of this reason maybe that the language that parliament used is confusing and vague (Australian Law Postgraduate Network, 155). This makes the words in the Acts to need more elucidation and explanation; this is contemplated by the statute interpretation of the meaning and intent of the words.
This assignment is going to offer legal advice two fact situations, which are found in possession of Prohibited Chemicals which are punishable offences, this comes after a radical movement group acclaimed that they will poison all public water systems in Australia. On January 2010 Helena (20) and her brother Jonathon (14) found in possession of “Cleano” and on the same month of 2010 Lucia was discovered importing large amount of “Methalin” from South America and storing it in the basement of her house.
Fact situation 1, Helena and Jonathon
Offence- Found in possession of a deadly chemical (Cleano) prohibited under fictitious Act known as the Importation of Prohibited Chemicals Act 2010 (Cth) On 30 September 2009. This act is very severe to the offender and in Australia which has been recently enforced.
Advice- The best advice I would advice that Helena and Jonathan, is to stick to their statement that the chemical Cleano belonged to Jonathan and was in the hotel without the acknowledgement of Helena, this is because under the Prohibited Chemicals Act 2010 (Cth) section 3, which is interpreted as prohibited chemical falls in the group of toxic chemicals and dangerous substances. In this section a child is defined as a person under the age of 16 years, importation is interpreted as shipment in and out of the country, state and within own property (Elhauge, 220).
Under section 4 of the Prohibited Chemicals Act (2010), if a person under this provision is 16 years younger and is in possession of the prohibited chemicals then they are excluded from the penalties that are executed to the person (adult) who is under this section interpreted as any person over the age of 16 (Pearce & Geddes, 100).
Helena if admitting to have awareness to the acknowledgement of prohibited chemicals in the hotel they were residing would make her guilty of the offense under section 3 and 4. This will make her be so because she is 20 years of age, and under the interpretation of section 4 of the Prohibited Chemicals Act (2010) it states that severe reprimanding shall be induced to any person found in possession of any prohibited chemical in Australia (Australian Law Postgraduate Network, 177).
I would argue them to stick to their alibi of Jonathan being the one that has the possession of the prohibited chemicals. Because Helena in the statement stated that she was not aware of the chemical in the room, this makes her not guilty of any offence under interpretation of section 4. This interpretation although Jonathan has a record of juvenile misconducts will excuse him on the basis that he falls on the provision that interprets him as a child and the law under section 4, have no penalties if the chemicals are found being possessed by a person under the age of 16 years (child).
In conclusion the case of Helen and Jonathan has no big impact as the chemical where bout and acknowledgement belong only to the child (Jonathan) and as the prohibited Chemical Act (2010) elucidates that a person under the age of 16 years will not be held punishable if found under the possession of the prohibited chemicals. Looking at the matter in a psychological angle it is acknowledgeable that the relationship between two teenage siblings is not that great, this is especially if they are of different gender. This illustrates that Jonathan could have had the chemical without the acknowledgement of her sister. Unless this case is like Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337, where the majority view was very much dissected. However, section 4 clearly takes Helena out of the reign of being help into possession of the prohibited chemicals, and under the same interpretation due to Jonathan (14) age which this section defines as a child and has not punishable provision for person under the age of 16 years. This will make the case be excused by the merit of the possession and ownership of the chemical belonging to Jonathan who is below the age level which the Act states for punishment (Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth, 1998).
Fact situation 2, Lucia
Offence- Found in possession of a deadly chemical (Methalin) prohibited under fictitious Act known as the Importation of Prohibited Chemicals Act (2010), Lucia was discovered that she was importing Methalin which is one of the prohibited drug in the Prohibited Chemicals Act (2010). The offenders of this crime are under section 5 of the Prohibited Chemical Act Punishable by either life imprisonment or death sentence (Statute Law Review, 182).
However, there is an exclusion that permit if the offender is a permanent residence in Australia compensate for his/her action by the commonwealth to sell off their property for compensation this provision is interpreted under section 5 (2). Though the law strengthened by act which the commonwealth parliament in her second reading Mary Anne McAdams MP said should add more enforcement when addressing a threat issued out by a certain radical group.
Advice- The offense here is very severe as Lucia not only has possession but also imports Methalin which among the most condoned chemicals in Australia. The evidence in her basement are the most darning aspect of the whole case. Under section 5(1) Lucia faces death or life imprisonment in the face, however the same Act elucidates that under section 7 that the only reason that the Commonwealth Chemicals Commission have the right of search and seizure of a person or property is in the case that that particular person has violated section 4 and 5 of the prohibited chemical act (2010) and also the interpretation of section 3 which articulates that the chemical unless regarded in very bad hands and unless expressed to the contrary manner (Winckel, 189).
In the case although there was a discovery and that Lucia is well over the child age limit for execution if a person is fond in possession of the prohibited chemicals. However, the commission not taking further action does not mean that they have stopped investigating Lucia. This means they are investigating her for a reasonable proof (Statute Law Review, 197). Therefore, in the case that she was found in violation of the prohibited chemical Act section 4 and 5, then she can as the act under section 5(2) which allows the sale of property for compensation purposes may let her house be sold for compensation.
The legality question here arises making the Lucia have the upper hand of the ownership and the interpretation of the ownership of the prohibited chemicals. This is best observed in the case where the judgment of O’Connor J in Potter v Minahan interpretation was formulated on “there shall be overthrowing of fundamental principles, general system of law departure and infringe rights as the last degree implausible, this in the view of not clear and irresistible of intention expression; and this would simply b authenticated through assumptions in their natural, widest or usual sense that would offer a meaning which was not even targeted in the first place” (Potter v Minahan, 1908)
Therefore as the authority have not accessed or taken evidence from Lucia all that I would advice her no to do is to dispose of the prohibited chemicals. This is because if the right investigation is carried through then the consequences are very severe to Lucia; this comes as she faces life imprisonment or a death sentence. However, section 5(2) allows any common wealth offenders who have property to sell so that they may compensate on the punishment that would have been allocated to them. This is another angle that would advice Lucia on in the case that she was ever found guilty or the commission decides to search and follow up the investigation and apprehend her (Australian Law Postgraduate Network, 203).
In conclusion basically the hands of the Commonwealth Chemicals Commission are kind tied and the most fundamental aspect that should be noted is the fact that the Profited Chemical Act (2010) under section 5 (2) makes exception to the nationality of this states as they do not represent threat to their own country but are also legible for sale of their property this is done to facilitate compensation (Gotsis, 57). When the Commonwealth Chemicals Commission took no action it means that there was no logical thing that they found alarming with Lucia having possession of the Prohibited chemical or the search was unlawfully committed.