Legal Process Assignment Terrorist Act
5 Pages1946 Words270 Views
Added on 2020-05-04
Legal Process Assignment Terrorist Act
Added on 2020-05-04
ShareRelated Documents
Legal processIntroduction The issue in this case is to interpret the provisions of the prohibited groups (Anti-terrorism) Act in order to determine whether Travis is liable for the breach of section 5, Wendy, section 3 and 5 a, and Linda, section 4 and 5 of the same Act. We are dealing with commonwealth jurisdiction. The act came into effect on August 1. The federal police charged Wendy, Linda and Travis under the statute.As far as the traditional approach is concerned, there are three basic rules of statutory interpretation, which are divided into Golden Rule, Literal Rule and Mischief Rule. According to section 6A of the interpretation Act 1979, a provision of an Act has to be constructed with respect to purpose of the Act and must not exceed the power, which have been provided by the Act.1According to the golden rule of interpretation, natural and ordinary meaning is given to statute unless there is any ambiguity. The object of the Act is to prevent terrorist Act and extremist violence by any prohibited group that seeks to further violence or pursue their goal through violence. The Act through section 2 provides that a terrorist act is any unlawful act committed in the furtherance of political or religious ideology for the purpose of damaging property or life. Further, the same section defines prohibited groups as any groups formed with the aim of committing terrorist and related act. Issue ADid Travis commit an offence under section 5 of the prohibited group (Anti-terrorist) Act?Was Travis part of the prohibited group?RulesProhibited group is defined in the act as any group formed for the purpose of committing terrorist and related act. With regard to section 5, it is convenient to say that the words defining the terrorist act are not clear. They are absurd; thus, the Golden rule of interpretation can be used in this case. The rule states that in any interpretation of statutes, unless the ordinary sense of the words would lead to some absurdity, or inconsistency, with the rest of the provision, the ordinary meaning of words must be used.2The High Court of Australia has endorsed few principals which are needed to give a proper meaning to legislation. And the most important states that when the legislation expressly provides the law which is applicable, the appropriate point where to start the analysis of the law is the text of the legislation and not any common law or elaborations of the provisions by courts.Further, the court emphasized that considering the words used in the statute, separately to bring out the meaning of word and establish the intention of the parliament in relation to a provision, 1. Staszewski, Glen. “The Dumbing Down of Statutory Interpretation.”(2015)2. Grey v Pearson ( 1857)6 HL Cas 61,106; 10 ER 1216, 1234
cannot be interpreted as an appropriate approach. The meaning of the word must be analyzed in the context in which it appears in the legislation. Application For Travis to be found guilty of an offence under the prohibited groups (Anti-terrorist) Act 2017, he must be found to form, join, distribute information on behalf of, or promotes, the activities of a prohibited group. Travis was part of the group that was formed with the purpose of stopping the killing of animal for food. And as part of such group, he sent a massage on Facebook inciting others to protest. He also kept a watch while the plan was carried out and streamed what was happing inside the factory on Facebook. It need to be determined whether Travis’ acts amount to a promotion of terrorist Activities as contemplated in the section of the prohibited groups Act. Therefore, to interpret the words of legislation, Judges are required to examine the total sentence together with the paragraphs and the provisions immediately surrounding the rule (1).It is likely that any interpretation using the golden rule would suggest that Travis will not be found guilty of breaching section 5 of the prohibited group (Anti-terrorist) Act. The Act provides for 18 months imprisonment for the breach of this section.ConclusionTravis cannot be construed as guilty.Issue BDid Wendi commit an offence under section 3 of the Act?Was Wendi a member of a prohibited group?RuleThe section does not provide a clear definition of Terrorist Act. It however provides a general definition that would encompass any unlawful act done in the furtherance of political or religious ideology with the objects of damaging property or life. According to literal rule of interpretation, emphasized by Higgins J in Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaid Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129, statute must be interpreted to bring out the ordinary meaning of the words or phrases according to the intent of the Parliament. Further, the application of literal approach would simply produce an unintended or absurd result as was established in Footscray city college v Ruzicka(2007) 16 VR 498. Thus, the needs of applying the golden rule. In Carr v the State of Western Australia, the court had to consider both the text, legislation, and the purpose at the overall context where the text fits in the legislation.ApplicationIn order to establish Wendy guilty of an offence under section 3, it is essential to prove that she committed a terrorist act, while being a member of a prohibited group. Wendy carried out the plan. Sheburnt the lock off the front door with the aim of exposing the animal killing. Since it is known at this
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Case Study on Legal Processlg...
|10
|2350
|120
Assignment on Legal Processlg...
|10
|2336
|197
Business Law: Interpretation of Statutes and Exclusion Clauseslg...
|6
|1342
|344
Business Law: Interpretation of Statutes and Exclusion Clauseslg...
|7
|1437
|422
Interpretation of Statutelg...
|7
|1502
|244
Law 100 | Issue, Application and Conclusionlg...
|5
|1027
|73