The Australian Legal System
Discussing the Outcomes of the Case
The defendant should be aware of the outcomes of his act. In spite of the fact that his actions did not provide any criminal intentions, it will be considered as an infringement against the Amendment issued by the New South Wales government highlighting that carrying a knife, gun, or any dangerous weapon is considered a statute violation and will be punished with a $ 2 000 fine.
According to Gifford and Salter (1996), [i]n finding out what the state of the law was before the Act was passed the reader is not limited to the state of the Acts of Parliament as they then existed (p. 79). Interpreting this statement, the Acts of Parliament can be amended in case of discovering the defects, using any materials for finding the mischief.
Rules of Statutory Interpretation for Resolving the Problem
Golden and literate rule
In accordance with the Crimes () Act 2010, section one, it is considered to be an infringement to carry a knife, gun, and another dangerous weapon in a public place. Due to the fact that Australian common law is subjected to statute interpretation, it means that the governments decision can be decisive in returning a verdict. What is more important is that it does not depend on a traditional approach in evaluating the statutes by means of golden, mischief, and literate rule. However, in this case, the application of golden and mischief rules is crucial for .
In accordance with the golden rule, it is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature to be collected from the statute itself or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance (Barker, 2000, p. 36).
The necessity of considering the golden rule in this particular case is vital due to the background circumstance. To be more precise, Mr. Butcher was not going to use this weapon for committing acts of violence. Therefore, in case the circumstances and the evidence of the crime are not clarified as the judge can refer to this common law to provide explanation and justification to the relevance of crime and accusation. The amendment to the New South Wales Crimes Act 2010 does not provide consistent and specific implications toward the established amendment. Therefore, there is an utmost necessity to refer to common law.
The application of the mischief rule is also imperative because it will and amendments to the established clause and define what mischief or defect a particular law has. In our case, it is necessary to specify the intent and purpose of carrying the weapon to take further actions. A good acquittal, in this case, will be the presence of a physical element and the jury must resolve the question concerning the seriousness of the intention and the extent to which a person is dangerous for the public (Latimer, 2008, p. 217). Besides, there is no element of provocation because the knife was held in the sheath and the arrested person did not perform any actions and movements that look like an attack or a threat to other people. Even if there is a threat of , the knife is covered with a sheath which provides no chances for being wounded.