Statutory Interpretation of the Victims of Violent Crime Scheme Act

This report provides a detailed analysis of the Victims of Violent Crime Compensation Scheme Act 2019, focusing on the principles and rules of statutory interpretation. It begins with an introduction to the role of the judiciary in interpreting legislation and the importance of aligning interpretations with the act's objectives. The report then provides an overview of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which outlines the guidelines for interpreting Australian legislation. It delves into the core principles and rules of statutory interpretation, including the literal rule, golden rule, and mischief rule, emphasizing the purposive approach. The main body of the report applies these rules to various claims made under the Victims of Violent Crime Compensation Scheme Act, evaluating each claim based on the act's objectives and the rules of interpretation. The analysis considers whether the losses suffered by the claimants are direct and align with the act's purpose of compensating innocent victims of violent crime. The report concludes with a summary of the findings and references relevant legal sources.

1 | P a g e
STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION

2 | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………….03
2. OVERVIEW OF INTERPRETATION ACT 1901………………....03
3. PRINCIPLES AND RULES OF STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION..04
4. APPLICATION OF ABOVE DISCUSSED RULES OF STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION ON THE GIVEN LEGISLATION AND
EXAMINING EACH CLAIM OF VARIOUS PEOPLE……………06
5. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………07
6. REFERENCES…………………………………………………………09

3 | P a g e
INTRODUCTION
The work of the legislature is to make or legislate the laws as per the requirement of the
country. A legislation can be interpreted in many ways describing the various meanings.
Sometimes it become a challenge for judiciary to interpret the law in correct manner. The duty of
the interpreting the law is given to the judiciary. While interpreting any law it must be
considered that the interpretation should be in such a way so that it meets the objectives and
purpose of the act. There are various rules which a court can refer while interpreting a particular
law. In this project the interpretation of Victims of Violent Crime Compensation Scheme Act
2019 will be done by examining various claims which are claimed under this act. The various
rules of interpretation will be discussed here in this project by referring the Acts Interpretation
Act 1901.
MAIN BODY
Overview of Interpretation Act 1901
The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 is an act of Australia which has been enacted by the
Australian legislature in order to prescribe the rules regarding interpretation of Australian
Legislations. This act was enacted for the purpose so that the courts or anyone who have given
power regarding the interpretation of the Australian legislations can refer this act when any
confusion arises. There is a possibility that the language of a legislation is indicating the two
possible meaning. In these types of situations, it must be considered that which meaning of the
act is fulfilling the purpose for which the particular act was enacted1.
This Act Interpretation Act 1901 is divided among various chapters such as
Commencement, Repeal and Expiration, what material can be referred while interpreting an act
etc. as per the Section 15AA of this act which directs the courts regarding the interpretation of
the provisions of an act in such a manner that it gives effect to the purpose and policy for which
certain act or provision was enacted2.
1 James Steele, "Statutory Forebears: Legislative Evolution As A Means Of Statutory Interpretation"
(2017) 39(3) Statute Law Review
2 "Statutory Interpretation Saves Lesbian Instructor's Lawsuit" (2018) 18(11).

4 | P a g e
As per the landmark case of Bropho vs Western Australia it was held that while doing
the interpretation of any act the Purposive Approach must be taken. This purposive approach
has given the preference over the literal interpretation of the statute as there is possibility that the
literal meaning of the act or any particular provision will not fulfil the aim for which the act was
enacted.
Principles and Rules of Statutory Interpretation
Many times such situation arise where an act or a particular provision comes before the
court and the court has to interpret that act or provision in such a way so that it can do the greater
good to public and achieve its purpose. Generally, the court’s role comes into play when any
dispute arises regarding the meaning of a particular act or provision. The reasons of these
disputes can be innumerable such as the words used in the legislation are ambiguous in nature
which are indication more than one meaning or there is absence of clarity which has been
occurred at the time when the disputed act was drafted. Statutory interpretation can be defined as
process of determining and identifying the true and real meaning of the act which is in dispute3.
Mainly there are three rule of statutory interpretation through which a statute can be
interpreted namely Literal Rule of Interpretation, Golden Rule of Interpretation & Mischief
Rule of Interpretation. Any one of these rules can be applied while interpreting any statute but
it must be taken into consideration that approach which should be taken into consideration while
such interpretation must be purposive in nature4.
The first rule of interpretation is Literal Rule. In this rule the act or the provision will be
interpreted as per the plain ordinary meaning of the words which has been used by the framers of
the constitution. As Australia is a common law country its enacted laws are based upon various
judgements given by the English Court. Regarding this rule of interpretation one landmark
judgement can be referred namely Fisher vs Bell (1960) in which the there was a notice put by
3 Francis Bennion, "Statutory Interpretation" (2015) 8(1) Legal Studies.
4 D. C Pearce and Robyn Creyke, Statutory Interpretation (Centre for Legal Information and Publications,
College of Law, 2015).

5 | P a g e
the shopkeeper by displaying a flick knife. The shopkeeper was tried for “Offering” offensive
weapons which was wrong in UK. When the matter came before the Court it has interpreted the
case by using this rule and stated that as the shopkeeper has put the notice as “Offer for Sale” but
this phrase must be interpreted as per the contract law and it was held by the court that display of
that weapon was just an invitation to offer. This Literal rule of interpretation has been defined in
the celebrated case of The Amalgamated Society of Engineers vs Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd
(1920) in which it was stated that this rule is used to find out the “Plain and ordinary meaning of
the statute”.
The next rule of interpretation is Golden Rule which can be considered as the extension
of literal rule. As per this rule while interpreting any legislation or any provision any ambiguity
or absurdity should be avoided5. This rule of interpretation has been approved by the Australian
courts through the case of The Australian Boot Trade Federation vs Whybrow & Co (1910).
The next rule which can be used by the courts while interpreting a statute is Mischief
Rule. It states that the interpretation must be done in such a way so that it can achieve the
purpose for which the act was enacted. The interpretation done by the court must be consistent
with the purpose of the act and while interpreting the act it should be considered that this statute
was enacted to rectify which mischief or issue prevalent in the society. This rule is also known
Haydon’s Rule. In Australia the landmark case upon this rule is HR Henderson vas Collector
of Customs.
There all also many things which should be considered while interpreting any statute
such as Rules of Language. These rule focuses mainly upon the thing that a word should be
interpreted in such a context in which they appear. These rule are mainly Ejusdem Generis and
Noscitur a Sociis.
Ejusdem Generis basically means where the list of certain specific words is followed by
general words, the meaning of those general words would be taken as per the class of specific
words. In simple terms when certain specific words are followed by general words, the meaning
of general should be modified by the specific. In the case of Attorney General vs Brown (1920)
5 Scott Guy, Statutory Interpretation.

6 | P a g e
this rule was applied in which certain prohibitions were imposed upon “arms, ammunition,
gunpowder or any other goods” and the question before court was whether the phrase “any of
goods” includes pyrogallic acid. The court by applying this rule stated that “any other goods”
does not include pyrogallic acid as specific words used forms a separate class.
Noscitur a Sociis is another rule which states that the words take their meaning from the
other words used in the same section. In the case of Mersey Docks and Harbour Board vs
Henderson Bros (1888) this rule was evolved. It basically presumes that interpretation must take
place in such a manner so that only one word should not be interpreted at a time but the whole
phrase or sentence must be taken into consideration while interpreting a single word. This rule
has been adopted by the Australian Courts through the case of Chandler vs Collector of
Customs (1907).
It is also an interesting fact that precedents play a major role in common law system but it
is not in the case of statutory interpretation. One court can interpret the provisions of an act in
one manner while the other court is free to take a different view.
Application of Above Discussed Rules of Statutory Interpretation on the Given Legislation and
Examining each Claim of Various People
The Innocent Victims of Violent Crime Compensation Scheme Act 2019 was enacted for
the purpose to award compensation to those people who have suffered any loss such as either of
property or of life in any protest against the brutality of police. The object and purpose of this act
were mainly “to limit and manage claims made against State Public Authorities in order to
protect the public interest in the continued financial viability of such entities6” and “to provide
certainty in an economical manner for the timely resolution of claims for compensation to
victims of crime”. This act also states that only direct damages will be provided under this act
which has been occurred due to protest against the brutality of the police. The main purpose of
this act for which it was enacted was that the innocent people who has directly got affected by
the protest must be compensated for the loss which they have suffered. It must be taken into
6 Michelle Sanson, Statutory Interpretation (2011).

7 | P a g e
consideration that the loss suffered for which the compensation has been granted must be direct
in the nature.
As one violence has broke out in Robina Shopping Centre in Queensland various people
have suffered the damages due to this protest. Various claims have been made under the above
mentioned act to demand for the compensation. The concerned minister has directed its staff to
tackle these claims with the utmost flexibility so that more number of people can get claim under
this act. By looking at the purpose of the act for which it was enacted and by applying the
Mischief Rule of interpretation it will evaluated whether these persons are entitled to get the
compensation or not. By applying the rule of interpretation the claims have been resolved as
following:
Claim 1: In this claim the parties are entitled to get the amount of the compensation
because as per the facts it is clear that the loss which has been occurred is directly linked to the
protest. The purpose of the act was to ensure that the innocent victims must get the compensation
of the loss suffered due to such protest and by applying the Haydon’s Rule Dinozo, Ziva and
McGee must get the amount of the compensation.
Claim 2: In this the compensation will not be awarded as this situation is not fulfilling
the purpose of the act for which it was enacted. Although the loss has been suffered by the owner
of tea shop but this loss is not direct in nature which is the basic requirement to claim the
compensation in the said act.
Claim 3: Mr. Gibbs is entitled to get the compensation as his house has been destroyed
by the protestors. As per the act the upper limit regarding the amount of the compensation has
been already set which indicates that in no case this limit can be exceeded. As per the facts
recently only the amount of compensation has been increased by 5%. Hence Mr. Gibbs cannot
claim the amount which is more than the prescribed one as per the said act.
Claim 4: In this claim the wife is entitled to get the compensation but only for the loss
which is directly resulted through such protest. As per the facts the wife is only entitled to
recover the medical expense of her husband and can’t claim compensation for other losses. If all
the claims of the wife will be considered by the manager of the fund, it will diminish the purpose
for which the act has been enacted.

8 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
By the above essay it can be concluded that there are various rules through which
statutory interpretation can be done. In the above essay various rules of interpretation has been
discussed such as Literal Rule, Golden Rule and Mischief Rule. It was also seen that how the
Acts Interpretation Acts 1901 helps the courts while interpreting an act or a specific provision. It
can be concluded through above essay that while interpreting any act or provision the purpose
for which that particular act has been enacted must be seen.

9 | P a g e
REFERENCES
Books & Journals
Sanson, Michelle, Statutory Interpretation (2011)
Steele, James, "Statutory Forebears: Legislative Evolution As A Means Of Statutory Interpretation" (2017)
39(3) Statute Law Review
"Statutory Interpretation Saves Lesbian Instructor's Lawsuit" (2018) 18(11)
Bennion, Francis, "Statutory Interpretation" (2015) 8(1) Legal Studies
Guy, Scott, Statutory Interpretation
Pearce, D. C and Robyn Creyke, Statutory Interpretation (Centre for Legal Information and Publications,
College of Law, 2015)