Chief Commissioner v Gentner [2026] VSCA 22
The court in this case (at [72]) noted that, when selecting between competing interpretations, regard may be had to the consequences of each10. Detective G was charged with a breach of discipline. Another officer later amended the charge, found it proved, and determined that G should be dismissed. The regulation said that the ‘Chief Commissioner or authorised person may amend a charge …’11
G argued the amendment was invalid, as only the original charging officer could amend the charge. This was rejected. The court reasoned (at [85]) that this was impractical, likely to cause delay and ‘unlikely to have been intended by the legislature12.
This principle is from Episode 131 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
10 Young [1999] NSWCCA 166 [15], CTM [2008] HCA 25 [237]) cited.
11 reg 52(1) Victoria Police Regulations 2014 (Vic).
12 cf Cooper (1981) 147 CLR 297 (319-321), Episodes 24, 54, 100 & 108.