Analysis of Statutory Interpretation in Commonwealth Games Act Case

This report provides an in-depth analysis of statutory interpretation, focusing on a case involving the Commonwealth Games Act. The report begins with an introduction to the case, which involves allegations of violating the Act by uploading videos. The discussion section outlines the key issues, including whether the defendant violated the Act and if they have any defenses. The report then delves into the principles of statutory interpretation, including retrospective legislation and penal provisions. It examines the presumption against retrospectivity and the application of ambiguity in favor of the accused. The report also explores potential remedies and defenses, considering the defendant's actions and intent. The report concludes that the defendant may have a defense based on their lack of malicious intent. References to relevant legal cases and academic sources are included to support the analysis.

Running head: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Statutory Interpretation
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Table of Contents
Introduction:...............................................................................................................................2
Discussion:.................................................................................................................................2
Issues:.....................................................................................................................................2
Statutory interpretation:..........................................................................................................3
Penal provision:......................................................................................................................3
Remedies or defences:............................................................................................................4
Conclusion:................................................................................................................................5
Reference:..................................................................................................................................6

2STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Introduction:
The subject of the case is attracting the provision of Commonwealth Games Act and
necessary provision has been made regarding the computer hacking system. It has been held
that the integrity of the games will be affected if proper steps have not been taken to be
followed1. Relevant provisions are made in this respect so that the interest of the same can be
protected and piracy can be restricted. Provision regarding section 20A and 20B has been
made in this respect.
The subject matter of the case is evolved with George who was alleged to violate the
provision of the Commonwealth games act and uploaded certain videos that are going against
the interest of the games2.
The provision of the case has to be discussed from certain interpretation chapters and
the self-incriminatory nature of the common law should have to be discussed in this case. An
attempt has been made to understand the presumptions of the statutory interpretation in this
report.
Discussion:
Issues:
The main issues of the case are whether George has violated the provision of the
Commonwealth Games Act or not and whether he has any defence to secure his interest or
not. It has been observed here that George is a member of anti gaming authority and had
1 Katz, Leslie. "The Introduction of Jury Sentencing in the Commonwealth of Virginia." (2016).
2 Golding, Gabrielle. "High court rules out mutual trust and confidence in Australian employment contracts:
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker [2014] HCA 32." (2014).

3STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
uploaded the video regarding the hidden scores of the game and the same was uploaded from
the office of taxation. After uploading the video, it becomes viral and George was arrested for
the same and being prosecuted in custody.
Statutory interpretation:
It can be stated under the interpretation law that legislation cannot be operating
retrospectively. The general proposition is that all legislation is meant to act prospectively,
that is into the future from when it becomes a new law. Legislation acting retrospectively is
the exception rather than the rule3. It would seem logical that when a person has complied in
good faith with the law of the land they should not later have their actions made illegal on
the whim of the legislature. The Commonwealth governments needed to quickly deal with the
potential to have almost 12 years worth of court decisions ruled invalid by this decision. It
enacted retrospective legislation validating the decisions made under the mistaken belief that
the relevant cross investing legislation had been validly made.
Penal provision:
It has been mentioned that presumption as against the allegation is still raised in practice in
criminal court proceedings by counsel for the accused. The presumption says that in the case
of legislation which creates a penalty, the benefit of any ambiguity is given to the accused
person4. Some justification for the approaches provided in George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR
104 as follows, “to insist on strict compliance with the statutory conditions governing the
3 Cracknell, Arthur P. Applied Group Theory: The Commonwealth and International Library: Selected
Readings in Physics. Elsevier, 2016.
4 Gluck, Abbe R., and Lisa Schultz Bressman. "Statutory Interpretation from the Inside--An Empirical Study of
Congressional Drafting, Delegation and the Canons: Part I." (2013).

4STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
issue of search warrants is simply to give effect to the purpose of the legislation.” In other
words, the courts were anticipating that the legislature wanted the provision to be strictly
adhered to.
Remedies or defences:
It has been observed in this case that George had to face the proceeding regarding the
uploading of video and it has also been observed that George had confessed that he has not
done the thing with ill motive5. It has been observed in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian
Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 that a Court construing a statutory provision
must strive to give meaning to every word of the provision. Sometimes the plain or ordinary
meaning might be the answer but on other occasions, based on the context, a technical
meaning or a legal meaning may be what was intended. The technical meaning of a word
may be the commercial or trade meaning of the word used particularly where it is clear that
the audience of the statute is not the general public6.
“Extrinsic material" is material outside of the words of the statute under consideration. These
materials might include Hansard, reports, agreements and the ministerial comments and
explanatory memoranda forming part of the process of introducing new laws in the
Parliament. It may also include dictionaries and case law. The provision of the case is
attracting the provision of Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
5 Christiansen, Matthew R., and William N. Eskridge Jr. "Congressional Overrides of Supreme Court Statutory
Interpretation Decisions, 1967-2011." Tex. L. Rev. 92 (2013): 1317.
6 Walker, Christopher J. "Inside Agency Statutory Interpretation." Stan. L. Rev. 67 (2015): 999.

5STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be stated that George can defend himself as he had not done the thing with
guilty mind. It is the duty of the court to examine all the matters and delivered its judgment
regarding the same.

6STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Reference:
Christiansen, Matthew R., and William N. Eskridge Jr. "Congressional Overrides of Supreme
Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions, 1967-2011." Tex. L. Rev. 92 (2013): 1317.
Cracknell, Arthur P. Applied Group Theory: The Commonwealth and International Library:
Selected Readings in Physics. Elsevier, 2016.
Gluck, Abbe R., and Lisa Schultz Bressman. "Statutory Interpretation from the Inside--An
Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation and the Canons: Part I." (2013).
Golding, Gabrielle. "High court rules out mutual trust and confidence in Australian
employment contracts: Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker [2014] HCA 32." (2014).
Katz, Leslie. "The Introduction of Jury Sentencing in the Commonwealth of Virginia."
(2016).
Walker, Christopher J. "Inside Agency Statutory Interpretation." Stan. L. Rev. 67 (2015): 999.