their plain ordinary meanings even if the effect of this would be to bring about an ambiguity
resulting in an unjust decision.
This approach to statutory interpretation is based on the premise that the intention of Parliament
in enacting statute is best found in the ordinary meanings of words used.
The Court of Criminal Appeal, however, in consulting two other decisions that were against this
‘narrow’ definition of damage concluded that physical interference causing the property to be
inoperable, whether temporarily or otherwise, satisfied the ‘destroys or damages’ element of the
offence. One of these cases was R v Heyne, an unreported decision that Simpson J had not
included in his consideration, which held that ‘temporary functional derangement’ suffices to
constitute criminal damage. The other decision was Hammond v The Queen in which it was held
that interference with functionality alone, without any ‘derangement’ of the property, may
consist of criminal damage.
The High Court, however, took a narrow view of the matter, and giving reasons, held that
damage to property according to s195(1) of the Crimes Act requires proof of the defendant’s act
or omission causing some alteration to the physical integrity of the property. As a consequence,
the Court, through the majority (Kiefel CJ, Bell J, Kean J, Gordon J, and Nettle J dissenting),
was of the opinion that Grajewski’s conviction be quashed. The Court, in taking a literal
approach towards the interpretation the statute stated that “as a matter of ordinary English, to
damage a thing means to injure or harm the thing in some way that, commonly, lessens the value
of the thing.”
The High Court also used the Purposive Approach towards the interpretation of the statute. This
approach involves not only the Court looking to see what the gap in the old Law was but also
trying to decide on what Parliament meant to achieve as it was enacting the Law. Lord Denning2
states that “we sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and of Ministers and carry it out,
and we do this better by filling the gaps and making sense of the enactment by opening it up to
destructive analysis.”
The High Court in Grajewski delved into the legislative history of Chapter II of Part IV of the
Crimes Act. In its assessment, The High Court found that the legislative history cannot overcome
2 Magor and St. Mellons Road District Council v Newport Corporation [1950] 2 All ER 1226

+13062052269

info@desklib.com

Rules Of Statutory Interpretation docx

Contribute Materials

Related Documents

Criminal Law Tasks 2022