"The Magistrate applied a rationale that given that the purpose of the Regulation was clearly to ensure that cigarette smoke did not enter areas where smoking was prohibited, and was not trapped nor allowed to stagnate or concentrate in areas where smoking was permitted, opening “directly” to the outside carried the connotation of unobstructed movement of air (and smoke) to the outside air without being trapped, stagnant or concentrated, and without passing through other places occupied by people. His Honour then stated that if this was correct, the direction that each screen faces was of little moment proved unobstructed and otherwise permissible airflow was sustainable. With respect, his Honour appears to have misunderstood the question for determination. The construction of clause 6(5) did not require his Honour to assess the ease with which air could pass through or escape from the building or structure, or the path it was required to take through a space before it was dispersed. Rather, it required an assessment of whether the building or structure said to constitute the “gap” (i.e. the mesh screens) led directly to the outside. In my view, this misunderstanding caused his Honour to introduce unnecessary complexity into the construction of clause 6(5) and ultimately, to err."