NSW Evidence - Dictionary Definitions
- Thread starter Jones-Smith
- Start date
-
- Tags
- evidence
'turn' is not in the Act and is defined in the standard dictionary as a continuous circular path around a point.
Why is this irrelevant?
Why is this irrelevant?
Then use the dictionary definition of turn, placed into the Road Rules' definition of u-turn.
I (think I) understand what you're trying to do. The chances of it working are slim to none. Even assuming you can get the definitions to align the way you want, the magistrate/judge is likely going to ignore you and rely on the 'purposive' meaning of the law. This means they will look at the intention of the law, and apply it in that light. This approach is being used increasingly, especially for matters like this, to stop people using technical arguments to try to get around regulations.
If you want to go to court to argue it out of principle, go right ahead. However, be prepared to incur the wrath of the magistrate/judge for taking up their time in making this argument. Depending on their caseload, the odds are that you won't even get through your argument before you get shut down. At that point I'd count myself lucky if you didn't incur some premium on your fine to account for court's time.
You could be lucky and get through your argument. You could be extremely lucky and get somewhere with it. I think the chances of that are almost zero.
I'm not saying this to tell you not to do it - that's your choice and it is your right to go to court to contest the claim. I'm simply telling you how I think it will go.
I (think I) understand what you're trying to do. The chances of it working are slim to none. Even assuming you can get the definitions to align the way you want, the magistrate/judge is likely going to ignore you and rely on the 'purposive' meaning of the law. This means they will look at the intention of the law, and apply it in that light. This approach is being used increasingly, especially for matters like this, to stop people using technical arguments to try to get around regulations.
If you want to go to court to argue it out of principle, go right ahead. However, be prepared to incur the wrath of the magistrate/judge for taking up their time in making this argument. Depending on their caseload, the odds are that you won't even get through your argument before you get shut down. At that point I'd count myself lucky if you didn't incur some premium on your fine to account for court's time.
You could be lucky and get through your argument. You could be extremely lucky and get somewhere with it. I think the chances of that are almost zero.
I'm not saying this to tell you not to do it - that's your choice and it is your right to go to court to contest the claim. I'm simply telling you how I think it will go.
Thank you for your comments.
Why is it that in Australia we would redefine u-turn to mean something other than a u-turn whereas in other countries the dictionary definition is what is used?
How/where would I find when the definition was changed to something other than u-turn?
Surely, we can't just redefine u-turn to something that is not a u-turn.
Why is it that in Australia we would redefine u-turn to mean something other than a u-turn whereas in other countries the dictionary definition is what is used?
How/where would I find when the definition was changed to something other than u-turn?
Surely, we can't just redefine u-turn to something that is not a u-turn.
(a) Don't know, but it's beside the point. The legal definition is the correct definition which applies in the particular state or territory of Australia. Taking another meaning is actually taking the wrong definition.
(b) The NSW definition has been in since 2014, when the Road Rules were enacted. It was probably there before that, but I don't know what the previous regulations' name was to check . In Queensland, where the same definition is used, it has been in place since at least 12 October 2009 (which is as far back as the current regulations go). So, possibly before that as well.
(c) You and I can't. The government can (and has). The government has the power to define u-turn to be whatever they want it to be.
(d) Purposive interpretation means that the courts look at what they consider to be the purpose the law seeks to achieve, and adopt that interpretation. This is as opposed to a strict (or sometimes called 'black letter') interpretation. Therefore, in a hypothetical example: If it was accepted that the strict definition of turn required a single continuous movement but the magistrate decided the purpose of the road rule was to make it unlawful to turn around in that position regardless of how many corrections were needed, then the court would ignore the strict definition of turn in favour of the meaning which best accomplishes the purpose intended by legislation as the court believes it to be.
Personally, I have concerns with purposive interpretation and the lack of certainty it gives - not to mention encouraging sloppy drafting; but it is gaining acceptance throughout the court system.
(b) The NSW definition has been in since 2014, when the Road Rules were enacted. It was probably there before that, but I don't know what the previous regulations' name was to check . In Queensland, where the same definition is used, it has been in place since at least 12 October 2009 (which is as far back as the current regulations go). So, possibly before that as well.
(c) You and I can't. The government can (and has). The government has the power to define u-turn to be whatever they want it to be.
(d) Purposive interpretation means that the courts look at what they consider to be the purpose the law seeks to achieve, and adopt that interpretation. This is as opposed to a strict (or sometimes called 'black letter') interpretation. Therefore, in a hypothetical example: If it was accepted that the strict definition of turn required a single continuous movement but the magistrate decided the purpose of the road rule was to make it unlawful to turn around in that position regardless of how many corrections were needed, then the court would ignore the strict definition of turn in favour of the meaning which best accomplishes the purpose intended by legislation as the court believes it to be.
Personally, I have concerns with purposive interpretation and the lack of certainty it gives - not to mention encouraging sloppy drafting; but it is gaining acceptance throughout the court system.
U-Turn is defined in the Dictionary to the Road Rules 2014.
As @Rob Legat - SBPL said, that's the definition that the court will apply.
This will happen pretty much no matter what you, the editors of the Macquarie Dictionary, or ten of your mates, think.
Within limits
re: Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth. I like the metaphor used by Fullagar J talking about lighthouses!
Similar threads
