Preservation of Significant Historical Buildings Act 2017 Free-Samples

Question: Using IRAC and Statutory Interpretation law only, outline an argument in Wallaces defence. Answer: Issue: Based on the facts, the issue that arises here is whether Wallace can be held liable under Section 4 of the Preservation of Significant Historical Buildings Act 2017 and if yes, then what are the available defences for him in his favour? Relevant Rules and Legislation: The process of statutory interpretation includes the action of the Court in which they apply legislation and rules to any case scenario. A certain amount of interpretation is very important when a case involves usage of any given statute. However, in many cases there is ambiguity and vagueness that the Judges have to resolve[1]. Thus, in such cases Judges use some other tools and method for statutory interpretation. Ideally, the judges follow the following rules for interpretation of any given statute: The Mischief Rule The Golden Rule The Literal Rule In Darwin Northern Territory, the Interpretation Act, 1901 is applicable. Section 15AA of the Act states that while interpreting a provision of an Act, the interpretation which is best to achieve the purpose or object of the Act is to be preferred to be accepted as the best interpretation. Moreover, Section 62A of the Act also states that while interpreting the provision of an Act the construction that helps in achieving the purpose or object of the Act shall be accepted as the best interpretation by the Court. The mischief rule is contained in Heydons Case as per which the following four things needs to be collected for proper interpretation of the statute: The common law that existed before the making of the Act The existing mischief or defect, which the common law did not provide The remedy that the Parliament resolved and the cure of the disease The reason for the given remedy and then the function of the Judge is to make the interpretation of the statute in such a manner so that the mischief is suppressed[2]. The mischief rule was applicable when statutes were a minor source of law in comparison to the common law. The Courts would identify the hidden mischief in lengthy preamble of the Acts and they would apply the same in any given case. The Law Commission of Australia has regarded the mischief rule to be the best than the other two rules of statutory interpretation[3]. The literal rule, as the word in itself suggests that the words of the statutory were interpreted the way it was, meaning as it is. The Courts have applied literal rule in many instances such as Whiteley v. Chappel in which the Judge had encouraged precision while drafting laws. On the contrary, there were many Judges that have criticized the the literal rule on the ground that it is interpreted the way it is written and that many other Judges overemphasize the written meaning of the given statute[4]. According to some Judges Courts may sometimes depart from the ordinary meaning leading to absurdity[5]. In the case of Grey v. Pearson, it was held that the grammatical or ordinary sense of the words should be complied with unless the same leads to some absurdity. In such cases, the grammatical or ordinary sense of the statute can be changed so that there is no inconsistency[6]. Thus, the applicability of the correct type of interpretation rule depends completely on the given case scena rio. Application: In the given case as well, Wallace Gromit demolished the stage where Henry dies and the shrine. As per the information given in the case study, Wallace Gromit was the owner of the pub at Alice Springs that was built in late 1980s. The pub was an unremarkable construction which was not renovated since long. A popular pop band named Two Directions performed at the pub however one of the popular band member died because of lightning. The fans received a huge shock and since then they stopped visiting the pub. This made Wallace demolish the pub however, Wallace was charged under section 4 of the Preservation of Significant Historical Buildings Act 2017. According to section 4 of the Act, It is an offence for any person to damage, destroy or otherwise interfere with a building of historical or cultural significance and a person doing so shall be charged with the penalty of 5000 dollars as fine. However, Wallace cannot be charged under Section 4 because if the definition of the word histor ical or cultural significance is taken into consideration then it says that historical means having cultural value to a significant proportion of the population. However, the Pub cannot be regarded as a historical building as it does not create a historical value to a significant proportion of the population. A pub, even if established late in 1980s cannot be regarded to create historical impact on the people. Secondly, the definition of the word damage, means and includes causing permanent and significant alterations to a building. However, if the actions of Wallace are taken into consideration then only the stage was demolished by Wallace where Henry died. He did not demolish or damage the entire building. He simply changed or modified the structure of the building and not completely destroyed it. The word damage as per section 4 of the Act means completely destroying or damaging the building. Wallace did not completely demolish the building but only destroyed a part of it as it w as restraining him from earning proper revenue. Thus, it may held here that Wallce actions are not against section 4 of the given Act. The arguments of Wallace are prepared following the golden rule of interpretation. In which if the meaning of the original statute is not understood from the words used in the statute then changes or modifications may be made in the words of the statute. The same rule has been applied in the given case as well, since the words of the Act were not clear especially in its meaning of damage and historical significance and meaning of section 4 of the Act. Conclusion: Finally, it may be concluded that Wallace cannot be held liable under section 4 of the Act and the necessary arguments was presented in his favour in the assignment. References: Bressman, Lisa Schultz, and Abbe R. Gluck. "Statutory Interpretation from the inside-an empirical study of congressional drafting, delegation, and the canons: Part II."Stan. L. Rev.66 (2014): 725. Gluck, Abbe R. "The Federal Common Law of Statutory Interpretation: Erie for the Age of Statutes." (2013). MacCormick, D. Neil, and Robert S. Summers.Interpreting statutes: a comparative study. Routledge, 2016. MacCormick, D. Neil, Robert S. Summers, and Arthur L. Goodhart, eds.Interpreting precedents: a comparative study. Routledge, 2016. Plucknett, Theodore FT.Statutes and their Interpretation in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century. Cambridge University Press, 2013. Posner, Richard A. "Comment on Professor Gluck's Imperfect Statutes, Imperfect Courts."Harv. L. Rev. F.129 (2015): 11 Posner, Richard A. "Comment on Professor Gluck's Imperfect Statutes, Imperfect Courts."Harv. L. Rev. F.129 (2015): 11. MacCormick, D. Neil, and Robert S. Summers.Interpreting statutes: a comparative study. Routledge, 2016. Plucknett, Theodore FT.Statutes and their Interpretation in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century. Cambridge University Press, 2013. Gluck, Abbe R. "The Federal Common Law of Statutory Interpretation: Erie for the Age of Statutes." (2013). MacCormick, D. Neil, Robert S. Summers, and Arthur L. Goodhart, eds.Interpreting precedents: a comparative study. Routledge, 2016. Bressman, Lisa Schultz, and Abbe R. Gluck. "Statutory Interpretation from the inside-an empirical study of congressional drafting, delegation, and the canons: Part II."Stan. L. Rev.66 (2014): 725.