It is 2025 when the law firm in which you work is asked for advice. Now for some background.

Jim Beanholds a pilot licencethat was granted under theMarine Safety Act 2010(Vic).

Interviewed for Channel XYZ's 'My Career' program, he talked at length about the dangers and excitement in being a marine pilot. He said one of the challenges was being a pilot withmonocular vision. He said he had only recently discovered he had that vision. He said he had 'learnt' how to deal with it.

A person listening to the broadcast was the Safety Director under the Marine Safety Act.

He began aninvestigation into Jim's licence. He located the application form for a pilot licence that Jim had lodged, including the attachments to the application - a medical certificate and eyesight certificate. On further investigation he discovered that theeyesight certificate was issued by an optometrist who had subsequently been struck off for being unqualified.

Jim received a letter from the Safety Director:

'I am concerned about the application you made for a pilot licence. You were required to attach acertified copy of your latest medical certificate and eyesight certificate. You were asked to declare that

"All particulars supplied on this application form and any attachments are true and correct."

The eyesight certificate you attached (Attachment B) stated that your vision (near and distance) and colour vision is satisfactory within [relevant standard]. The certificate specifically states you do not have monocular vision. I have reason to believe that one or more of these statements was not true and correct. I am referring in particular to the statement concerning monocular vision.

I am hereby giving you notice that I am considering taking disciplinary action against you on the ground that your pilot licence was obtained by false statement in Attachment B.

You have 21 days to show cause why I should not exercise my discretion to take disciplinary action against you under Division 2 of Part 4.6 of theMarine Safety Act 2010(Vic).'

Within that period Jim comes to the law firm in which you work for advice and assistance. He says that the eyesight appointment he had for the purposes of his application for a pilot licence was 'very quick', but he did not question it at the time.

Your manager at your law firm, Gloria, tells you that, among other things, the firm is considering whether the Safety Director has grounds under s165(1)(g)to take disciplinary action in respect of Jim Bean. As part of that inquiry, Gloria asks you to answer this question about the declaration Jim made for the purposes of his application for a pilot licence: in so far as the declaration applied to Attachment B, did Jim make a 'false statement' within the meaning of s 165(1)(g) of the Marine Safety Act?

In the course of answering Gloria's question, interpret 'false statement' in s 165(1)(g) of the Marine Safety Act. Assume those words are the central unit of inquiry in the problem.

Assume also

That a pilot licence is a 'permission'.

That the application form and the inquiries it made of Jim and themedicalprofessionals werelawful.

That the Safety Director'sinquiries of Jim are lawful so far.

That Jim concedes that the information contained in Attachment B was not correct in respect of monocular vision, that the declaration he made at the time applied to the information about monocular vision, and the declaration was accordinglynot true and correct at least in that specified respect. In other words, put aside the argument (assuming it could be relevant) thatany false statement in Attachment B was not made by Jim but was only made by the optometrist.Therefore, assume for the purposes of answering this question that any false statement was made by Jim.

That Jim was unaware at the time of the application that he had monocular vision.

Central unit of inquiry

Meaning of 'central unit of inquiry'

The word or words whose meaning is in doubt or is to be regarded as in doubt. The word 'central' indicates that the question paper is not ruling out the possibility that in order to determine the meaning of these words, another word or set of words may also be ambiguous. This is standard advice in relation to statutory interpretation and is not to be taken to be suggesting that such an inquiry is necessary in relation to the present problem.

in this case the central unit of inquiry is 'False statement'

paragraph g) of section 165 of the Marine Safety Act 2010 "thepermissionwas obtained by false statement or any misrepresentation or other dishonest means"

False statement is not defined in the Act nor the Interpretation of Legislation Act.

Define 'False statement' look at two dictionary meanings to see if there are any discrepancies. Try using the Oxford Dictionary and the Macquarie Dictionary

Opposing constructions of unit of inquiryandapplications to facts

[The object is to consider all constructions that might be considered by a court. Normally, the opposing constructions which are considered by a lawyer asked to give an Opinion are two constructions, one of which favours one party and another which favours the other party. They are accordingly the constructions put by, or which could be put by, each party. However, uncommonly, it may be appropriate to consider a third construction one that is not in favour of either party. In that case, that construction could be (but need not be) the construction that is ultimately preferred.]

(a) [Name of party; the party whose construction is not preferred at

(i) Construction for Safety Director (what the safety director wants 'false statement' to mean. (safety director wants a narrower meaning of 'false statement)

(ii) Application to facts

[The likely result of applying the above construction to the facts.]

(b) [Name of opposing party; the party whose construction is preferred

(i) Construction for Jim (what patrick wants 'false statement' to mean. (defense wants a wider meaning of 'false statement')

(ii) Application to facts

[The likely result of applying the above construction to the facts.]