There are various approaches when interpreting statute. A formalist approach is when the judge is considered to be ‘conservative’ and follows the set rules rather than developing common law. On the other hand, Dynamism is when the judge looks beyond the specific set rules and interprets statute with regards to various aspects and provides a decision that is reasoned ‘fair and just’.
The importance of the formalist approach is to recognise parliamentary sovereignty. However, Kirby J in the case of Carr v WA and Kelly v R approaches the statute in a way that is seen as more dynamic. Kirby often gives looks to the intent of the statute when interpreting the legislation. The majority view in Carr and Kelly were to decipher the ‘plain’ meaning of the term ‘interview’.
Michelle Sanson’s idea that “the divide is not as vast as it seems” ultimately emphasises the limitations placed upon judges to ensure the statutory text is followed and places a natural constraint through judicial interpretation. As a result of this, decision makers are unable to adapt their own personal view of the meaning of a term that is not necessarily credited to. However, judges when interpreting an Act are required to consider the purpose of the Act when establishing a final decision. Spielgman CJ has regularly discussed the limitations on courts that restrain the amount of formalism and level of dynamism applied.
The high court decision of Carr, by a 4-1 majority, dismissed the appeal and held that the term “interview” encompassed the conversation in lock-up. Further, in the high court decision of