Statutory Interpretation:
Statutory interpretation refers to the action of courts/judges adding meanings to wording within legislation. In doing so, they don't actually change the words themselves, only the definition that applies to the relevant wordings.
Reasons for statutory interpretation:
One reason why statutes may need to be interpreted is due to ambiguous wording within legislation. At the time of drafting, legislation may have been rushed through parliament in order to meet a dire need and as such, wording that is used may have been unclear, broad or ambiguous. As such, when a dispute appears before the courts, judges are given the responsibility of interpreting what context the words should be given and what can be deemed reasonable. An example of this is found within the Studded Belt case of what constitutes as a "regulated weapon".
Another reason for statutory interpretation is the changing meaning of words over time. Legislation written by parliament may have been written many, many years ago and as such, due to changing society values and technology, the context of the words may change. This can be seen within Kevin and Jennifer's case whereby what constitutes as a "man" has changed. When the marriage Act was written, it may not have been possible to have gender re-assignment surgery and as such this word was updated to include people that have chosen to lead a different lifestyle due to elective surgery.
Studded Belt Case:
The plaintiff was arrested by a police officer charged with an offence for having a "regulated weapon". This offence is part of the Wrongs Act whereby an individual could be charged if they possessed items with raised studs. Within the Magistrates court the plaintiff was found guilty and appealed. The supreme court on appeal found the original decision unreasonable. Here the judges were required to interpret the meaning of the words 'regulated weapon' and found that; at the time of the arrest the plaintiff was wearing the belt as an accessory despite it having raised studs. Secondly, although the belt could be used as a weapon, it was being used as such at the time.
From this ruling, the judges took a narrow interpretation of the words "regulated weapon" and limited the parameters in which the words could be applied. In doing so, the judges reversed the decision of charging the plaintiff for wearing a belt with raised studs. This also led to parliament amending the wording of the Wrongs Act to reflect the decision of the courts and become more reasonable and its use.
Kevin and Jennifer:
The plaintiffs were married and sought to have their union recognised under Australian law. Here, the dispute came about based on whether Kevin could be considered a man. Kevin was originally born female however had undergone gender re-assignment surgery and taken hormones to become a male. The Attorney General intervened and tried to argue that a legal marriage was between a man and woman and Kevin, was not a male. The Family court was then required to interpret the wording of "man" and ruled in favour of the plaintiff.
Here the judges found that, a person's sex should only be relevant at the time of the marriage. When Kevin married Jennifer, he was living his life as a male, undergone surgery and taken hormones to change his sex. He had even gone so far as registering with births, deaths and marriages to change is sex. As such, although he was not born a male, technology has allowed him to become one in the most reasonable manner and therefore should be considered a man. The decision undertaken by the judges took a broad interpretation of the word man to include not only those born male but also catered for technological advancements providing the ability to gender re-assignment.
As a result of this decision, the definition relating to the word "man" was expanded.
Statutory interpretation refers to the action of courts/judges adding meanings to wording within legislation. In doing so, they don't actually change the words themselves, only the definition that applies to the relevant wordings.
Reasons for statutory interpretation:
One reason why statutes may need to be interpreted is due to ambiguous wording within legislation. At the time of drafting, legislation may have been rushed through parliament in order to meet a dire need and as such, wording that is used may have been unclear, broad or ambiguous. As such, when a dispute appears before the courts, judges are given the responsibility of interpreting what context the words should be given and what can be deemed reasonable. An example of this is found within the Studded Belt case of what constitutes as a "regulated weapon".
Another reason for statutory interpretation is the changing meaning of words over time. Legislation written by parliament may have been written many, many years ago and as such, due to changing society values and technology, the context of the words may change. This can be seen within Kevin and Jennifer's case whereby what constitutes as a "man" has changed. When the marriage Act was written, it may not have been possible to have gender re-assignment surgery and as such this word was updated to include people that have chosen to lead a different lifestyle due to elective surgery.
Studded Belt Case:
The plaintiff was arrested by a police officer charged with an offence for having a "regulated weapon". This offence is part of the Wrongs Act whereby an individual could be charged if they possessed items with raised studs. Within the Magistrates court the plaintiff was found guilty and appealed. The supreme court on appeal found the original decision unreasonable. Here the judges were required to interpret the meaning of the words 'regulated weapon' and found that; at the time of the arrest the plaintiff was wearing the belt as an accessory despite it having raised studs. Secondly, although the belt could be used as a weapon, it was being used as such at the time.
From this ruling, the judges took a narrow interpretation of the words "regulated weapon" and limited the parameters in which the words could be applied. In doing so, the judges reversed the decision of charging the plaintiff for wearing a belt with raised studs. This also led to parliament amending the wording of the Wrongs Act to reflect the decision of the courts and become more reasonable and its use.
Kevin and Jennifer:
The plaintiffs were married and sought to have their union recognised under Australian law. Here, the dispute came about based on whether Kevin could be considered a man. Kevin was originally born female however had undergone gender re-assignment surgery and taken hormones to become a male. The Attorney General intervened and tried to argue that a legal marriage was between a man and woman and Kevin, was not a male. The Family court was then required to interpret the wording of "man" and ruled in favour of the plaintiff.
Here the judges found that, a person's sex should only be relevant at the time of the marriage. When Kevin married Jennifer, he was living his life as a male, undergone surgery and taken hormones to change his sex. He had even gone so far as registering with births, deaths and marriages to change is sex. As such, although he was not born a male, technology has allowed him to become one in the most reasonable manner and therefore should be considered a man. The decision undertaken by the judges took a broad interpretation of the word man to include not only those born male but also catered for technological advancements providing the ability to gender re-assignment.
As a result of this decision, the definition relating to the word "man" was expanded.