LAW 100, Semester 1: Statutory Interpretation of Banned Drugs Act

This assignment analyzes a case scenario under the Banned Recreational Drugs Act 2004 (Qld), focusing on statutory interpretation. The analysis centers on whether an individual, Nic, would be considered guilty of an offense under section 10 of the Act, which outlaws recreational drugs including 'SomaHeaven'. The assignment emphasizes the role of judges in interpreting statutes, referencing the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), and the importance of considering the intention of the Act. It discusses the golden rule, mischief rule, and literal rule of statutory interpretation, providing examples like Adler v George, Corkery v Carpenter, and Fisher v Bell. The application section interprets section 10, considering the Minister for Justice's statement and the absence of a definition for 'recreational drug'. The analysis concludes that, based on the interpretation of the Act using these rules, Nic would likely be found guilty. The assignment includes a list of references including the relevant legislation and case laws.

Running head: LAW 100
LAW 100
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1LAW 100
Issue
The issue that can be raised in the given case scenario is whether Nic would be
considered as being guilty of an offence under the provisions of section 10 of the Banned
Recreational Drugs Act 2004 (Qld).
Law
The interpretation of any statute can be considered as a vital role for the judges. One
of the major functions of the judges includes the analysing of the cases on the basis of the
provisions that have been provided in the statutes. If the judges are seen as being in failure of
proper interpretation there would be a miscarriage of justice in the system. For the proper
interpretation of the statutes the judges are required to be following the Acts Interpretation
Act 1901 (Cth)1. In this context, the judges are required to be following the provisions of
section 15AA2 in which it has been mentioned that interpreting an Act is required to be done
in a way in which it will be fulfilling the intention of the Act. In furtherance to this, section
15AB(2)(c)3 posits that in a situation in which the Houses of the Parliament or Parliament
Committee are seen as making any kind of speech, report or publication in relation to the
aforementioned Act in concern, then the provision of the Act is required to be interpreted by
way of its reference to the external matters.
In furtherance to this, the court can also be referring to the rules of statutory
interpretation. There are three rules for the interpretation of the statutes. These three rules
include the golden rule, mischief rule and the literal rule.
Golden Rule: The golden rule allows the judges to be deviating from the regular and original
meaning of the words during the interpretation of any law. This permission is provided so
1 Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)
2 Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AA
3 Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AB (2) (c)

2LAW 100
that there is no absurdity in arriving at the judgment of the case. The judges were seen as
following the golden rule of interpretation of the law in their judgment in the case of Adler v
George [1964] All ER 628.4
Mischief Rule: The mischief rule can be seen as providing powers to interpret the law upon
their own discretion. In this rule the mischief or the gap that is present in any law is observed
as being intended to be covering by way of the statutes. The main intention that the
Parliament had while making the law is required to be considered by the judges at the time of
interpreting the statutes. The judges were seen as following the mischief rule of interpretation
of the law in their judgment in the case of Corkery v Carpenter [1951] 1 KB 1025 while they
referred to the provisions of the Licensing Act 18726.
Literal Rule: While following the literal rule for interpretation, the courts are required to be
following the literal and plain meanings of the law, as is suggested by its name. In the
judgment of Fisher v Bell [1960] 3 All ER 7317 the judges were observed as following the
literal rule of statutory interpretation.
Application
In the given scenario it can be observed that the government of Queensland has
passed a new law named the Banned Recreational Drugs Act 2004 (Qld) which outlaws a
number of drugs including a recreational drug named the ‘SomaHeaven’. As per the Minister
for Justice the main objective of the Act is to be addressing the increasing use of recreational
drugs. In the given scenario for analysing the issue section 10 of the Act is required to be
interpreted.
4 Adler v George [1964] All ER 628
5 Corkery v Carpenter [1951] 1 KB 102
6 Licensing Act 1872
7 Fisher v Bell [1960] 3 All ER 731

3LAW 100
For the interpretation of the above mentioned section the provisions of section 15AA
of the Act is required to be followed. Applying this section the main aim of the Act is to
outlaw a number of drugs including a recreational drug named the ‘SomaHeaven’. However,
the term ‘recreational drug’ has not been defined in the legislation. In furtherance to this, the
statement of the Minister for Justice can be referred to by interpreting it with the help of
section 15AB(2)(c ). According to the statement of the minister the recreational drugs
including the drug ‘SomaHeaven’ has been a matter of concern for the potential long-term
negative health effects of the drug to the regular users. Thus the main aim of the enactment of
the Act is to prohibit the use and supply of the recreational drugs.
In furtherance to this, in the given situation the golden rule can be applied for the
proper interpretation of the Act. By applying the golden rule the aim of the Act would be
found as to prohibit the use and supply of the recreational drugs by the youths.
When the mischief rule is applied in this scenario it can be seen that there is an
existence of a gap as there is no definition provided for ‘recreational drugs’.
By following the literal rule any drug mentioned in schedule 2, if supplied or used,
would amount to a penalty of 2000 penalty units or 10 years of imprisonment or both.
Schedule 2 provides only the drug ‘SomaHeaven’.
Conclusion
Therefore, by way of the interpretation of the Act by the rules of interpretation it can
be concluded that Nic would be considered as being guilty of an offence under the provisions
of section 10 of the Banned Recreational Drugs Act 2004 (Qld).

4LAW 100
Reference
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)
Adler v George [1964] All ER 628
Corkery v Carpenter [1951] 1 KB 102
Fisher v Bell [1960] 3 All ER 731
Licensing Act 1872