Arms Act - Definition of "person"
Andre made this Official Information request to New Zealand Police
This request has been withdrawn by the person who made it. There may be an explanation in the correspondence below.
From: Andre
Dear New Zealand Police,
Is the definition of "person" within the Arms Act the same definition of "person" as contained in the Interpretation Act? Is there any other legislative reference within Arms Act which alters the definition of "person" as defined in the Interpretation Act? If so provide the references and a full and unambiguous definition for each instance.
I am a law abiding citizen and as such only require the specific facts as requested. I specifically request no opinions be given.
Yours faithfully,
Andre
New Zealand Police
'Do not reply to this message, this email message has been sent from an
un-monitored email address'
Thank you for your email.
As defined in the Interpretation Act “ person includes a corporation
sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body ” -
[1]http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publi...
As defined in the Firearms Code -
Every person in possession of any firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted
weapon shall, on demand, give his full name, address, and date of birth to
any member of the Police who is in uniform or who produces evidence that
he is a member of the Police.
(2)
If any person refuses to give his name, address, or date of birth or gives
false particulars thereof, any member of the Police—
(a)
may caution that person; and
(b)
if that person persists in such refusal or fails or continues to fail to
give the correct particulars,—
may arrest him without warrant.
(3)
Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding
$1,000 or to both who, in response to a demand under subsection (1),
refuses to give his name, address, or date of birth or gives false
particulars thereof to any member of the Police.
[2]http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publi...
If you require further information about the laws and definitions, if
these do not meet the requirements you had hoped for, it best advised to
contact a Community Law Office, who will be able to provide you with
further information.
Please email us again at [3][New Zealand Police request email] if we can help you
any further.
Regards
New Zealand Police
'Do not reply to this message, this email message has been sent from an
un-monitored email address'
===============================================================
WARNING
The information contained in this email message is intended for the
addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be
subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which
creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this
message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this
message or any of its contents.
Also note, the views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect
those of the New Zealand Police. If you have received this message in
error, please email or telephone the sender immediately
References
Visible links
1. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publi...
2. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publi...
3. mailto:[New Zealand Police request email]
From: Andre
Dear New Zealand Police,
Thank you for the replay, however you have not answered the question. The clarification which i am seeking is the definition of "person" within the Arms Act the same definition of "person" as contained in the Interpretation Act?
I also requested clarification if there is any other legislative reference within Arms Act which alters the definition of "person" as defined in the Interpretation Act. From your response see that you have not been able to supply any legislative reference which would alters the definition of "person".
So please clarify if the definition of "person" within the Arms Act is the same definition of "person" as contained in the Interpretation Act?
I am a law abiding citizen and as such only require the specific facts as requested. I specifically request no opinions be given.
Yours faithfully,
Andre
New Zealand Police
Thank you for your email. Contact your nearest Arms Officer for further
clarification on the legislation.
The following link will have the contact details of the Arms Officers in
each district.
http://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearm...
-----Andre <[FOI #4725 email]> wrote: -----
To: OIA/LGOIMA requests at New Zealand Police <[New Zealand Police request email]>
From: Andre <[FOI #4725 email]>
Date: 24/10/2016 02:38PM
Subject: Re: NZ Police Enquiry
Dear New Zealand Police,
Thank you for the replay, however you have not answered the question. The
clarification which i am seeking is the definition of "person" within the
Arms Act the same definition of "person" as contained in the
Interpretation Act?
I also requested clarification if there is any other legislative reference
within Arms Act which alters the definition of "person" as defined in the
Interpretation Act. From your response see that you have not been able to
supply any legislative reference which would alters the definition of
"person".
So please clarify if the definition of "person" within the Arms Act is the
same definition of "person" as contained in the Interpretation Act?
I am a law abiding citizen and as such only require the specific facts as
requested. I specifically request no opinions be given.
Yours faithfully,
Andre
show quoted sections
From: Andre
Dear New Zealand Police,
Are you saying that the New Zealand Police are refusing to provide the answer to the question? If you need to contact your Arms Officer or any other individual within your organization to answer the request please do so.
The question is a very simple one is the definition of "person" within the Arms Act the definition within in the Interpretation Act.
This is a very simple question and only has three possible answers:
1. Yes the definition of “person” for the Arms Act is defined within the Interpretation Act.
2. No the definition of “person” for the Arms Act is not defined within the Interpretation Act but XYZ Act.
3. The New Zealand Police do not know what the definition of “person” for the Arms Act is.
As before i specifically request no opinions be given.
Yours faithfully,
Andre
From: Andre
Dear New Zealand Police,
Could you provide a indication of when the answer to the request will be ready?
Yours faithfully,
Andre
D J Blair left an annotation ()
If not defined within the act then that word is as defined within the interpretation act.
The interesting part of interpreting this act is use of the word 'includes' or 'including'. My understanding of "inclusio unius est exclusio alteriusis" is the specific inclusion of one excludes all others. So you could say, as stated in this act that a person is a corporation, and only a corporation.
Mr Rodgers left an annotation ()
Following your logic, the North Island doesn't exist.
Interpretation Act:
"North Island means the island commonly known as the “North Island”; and includes the islands adjacent to it north of Cook Strait"
Your rule doesn't apply to illustrative lists.
Mr Rodgers left an annotation ()
And:
NZ consists of the Cook Islands; Niue; Tokelau; and the Ross Dependency, and,
NZ statute law is confined to the Imperial Acts
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request
Luke C left an annotation ()
The question you ask is simple. However the OIA is not a tool for obtaining a bespoke legal opinion. It is a tool for obtaining information. For example, you could ask if there was any legal opinions held (already written down) on the definition of "person" vis a vis the Arms Act. There might, on the off chance, be correspondence between Police and another person on that topic, or their in-house lawyer may have provided a legal opinion in a previous time, or there may be a manual that clarifies the definition.
The Police have not actually stated whether the information exists. I suspect this is because they haven't actually looked, but instead pointed you to other Acts and other sources of advice (community law centre).
In the absence of the information not being held, you could then ask the National Firearms Contact* for an opinion. This would be outside the OIA. I wonder whether the Firearms contact would be prepared to ask the Police's in-house lawyer for an opinion?
If you have no luck with the Firearms contact, I would suggest the community law centre as a source of good legal advice that is free. You need to find someone who has studied statutory interpretation as part of their legal studies. There are rosters for what nights certain lawyers are at centres, so this can be helpful in finding the right person.
*http://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearm...
Link to this