Statutory Interpretation and International Library †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Statutory Interpretation and International Library. Answer: 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 followed. 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 games. 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. 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 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 rule. 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. 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 person. 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 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. 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 motive. 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 public. 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. 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. 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.