It’s no secret that phrases like ‘in connection with’11 routinely raise interpretation problems because of their general nature and variability of operation12. They may cover a wide spectrum of relationships. The court in this case, like many others before it, exercised caution in approaching the phrase.
However, it went a step further saying (at [31]) that ‘greater care’ should be exercised when these terms appear in criminal statutes13. Relational phrases are like chameleons – they take their colour from their surroundings14. iTip – relational phrases must always be ‘appropriately confined to accord with the object and purpose’ of the provision in which they appear.
This case is from Episode 33 of interpretationNOW!
Footnotes:
11 See Episodes 19 & 26, Pearce & Geddes (at [12.7-12.8]).
12 cf Goyal [2018] FCA 129 (at [34-36]), Our Town FM [1987] FCA 301 (at [37]).
13 In this case, s 73(2)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900.
14 Technical Products [1989] HCA 24 (at [5]), Morris [2017] FCAFC 97 (at [41]).