http://www.canberratimes.com.au/queensland/appeal-over-home-brew-conviction-succeeds-20130406-2hdz4.html
An appeal against convictions over home brew in a dry Aboriginal community has been successful, thanks to the placement of commas and the use of the word "includes" in state legislation.
Selina Rockland, Rita Yarrak and Sophia Yarrack were found guilty in Mornington Island Magistrates Court on October 23, 2012, for possessing yeast that could be used in home brew in the dry Aboriginal community.
The trio did not dispute they had yeast in their possession or that they intended to use the yeast to brew alcohol.
Ms Rockland and Ms Yarrack were convicted and fined $1000, while Ms Yarrak was fined $500, but had no conviction recorded.
That Act defines home brew concentrate as ‘‘a substance, that includes malt and hops, ordinarily used to brew beer’’.
In his written appeal judgment, District Court Judge Mitchell Irwin said the commas had been ‘‘central to the interpretation’’ of the law.
‘‘Whether the definition is read with or without either or both of the commas, its clear meaning is that 'home-brew concentrate' ... is a substance ordinarily used for brewing beer that includes malt and hops,’’ Judge Irwin writes.
‘‘That is, the substance must be comprised of or contain, but is not limited to, malt and hops that is ordinarily used for this purpose. Put another way, any substance would need to include malt and hops before it could be regarded as ‘home-brew concentrate’ within paragraph (a).’’
Judge Irwin writes the commas in the paragraph had been placed to make it clear that the words ‘‘ordinarily used for brewing beer’’ were linked with a substance.
He agreed that the definition ‘‘can be read and comprehended as a substance ordinarily used for brewing beer", but that "...the legislature cannot have intended ‘that includes malt and hops’ is entirely redundant, and has no relationship to a substance ordinarily used for brewing beer when interpreting the definition".
Judge Irwin went on to write ‘‘...the intention of the legislature was also to avoid the absurd result of criminalising the possession of such an every day food stuff’’.
Judge Irwin found the guilty verdicts ‘‘arose from a legal error’’ and set aside the convictions.
An appeal against convictions over home brew in a dry Aboriginal community has been successful, thanks to the placement of commas and the use of the word "includes" in state legislation.
Selina Rockland, Rita Yarrak and Sophia Yarrack were found guilty in Mornington Island Magistrates Court on October 23, 2012, for possessing yeast that could be used in home brew in the dry Aboriginal community.
The trio did not dispute they had yeast in their possession or that they intended to use the yeast to brew alcohol.
Ms Rockland and Ms Yarrack were convicted and fined $1000, while Ms Yarrak was fined $500, but had no conviction recorded.
Advertisement
Central to their appeal was the placement of commas in
Section 27 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities
(Justice, Land and Other Matters) Act of 1984.That Act defines home brew concentrate as ‘‘a substance, that includes malt and hops, ordinarily used to brew beer’’.
In his written appeal judgment, District Court Judge Mitchell Irwin said the commas had been ‘‘central to the interpretation’’ of the law.
‘‘Whether the definition is read with or without either or both of the commas, its clear meaning is that 'home-brew concentrate' ... is a substance ordinarily used for brewing beer that includes malt and hops,’’ Judge Irwin writes.
‘‘That is, the substance must be comprised of or contain, but is not limited to, malt and hops that is ordinarily used for this purpose. Put another way, any substance would need to include malt and hops before it could be regarded as ‘home-brew concentrate’ within paragraph (a).’’
Judge Irwin writes the commas in the paragraph had been placed to make it clear that the words ‘‘ordinarily used for brewing beer’’ were linked with a substance.
He agreed that the definition ‘‘can be read and comprehended as a substance ordinarily used for brewing beer", but that "...the legislature cannot have intended ‘that includes malt and hops’ is entirely redundant, and has no relationship to a substance ordinarily used for brewing beer when interpreting the definition".
Judge Irwin went on to write ‘‘...the intention of the legislature was also to avoid the absurd result of criminalising the possession of such an every day food stuff’’.
Judge Irwin found the guilty verdicts ‘‘arose from a legal error’’ and set aside the convictions.
No comments:
Post a Comment