The Queen v A L [2016] VSCA 156
How do you interpret everyday words in a statute when they also have a specialised trade or technical meaning? Normally words take their ordinary meaning – particularly since parliament can define a word if it is meant to have a special meaning1. However, context, phrasing or subject matter may show that another meaning is intended2.
In this case, a provision described modification of a drug ‘by the addition of’ a chemical. The Court (at [9-21]) read ‘addition’ normally and rejected a narrower scientific meaning (‘addition reaction’). Although the section used scientific terms, that didn’t mean every other word had a technical meaning.
This case is from Episode 16 of interpretationNOW!
Footnotes:
1 Australian Leisure [2012] WASC 463 (at [22]); Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert (1996) 186 CLR 389 (at 402).
2 Marine Power Australia [1989] FCA 210 (at [52]).