It seems obvious that this AND was added as one does a list of things, "Add sugar, flour AND water." but in a conditional, which makes it possible to construe a

It seems obvious that this AND was added as one does a list of things, "Add sugar, flour AND water." but in a conditional, which makes it possible to construe a different meaning. In my understanding, the court should strive to interpret the law by its intention, and here it seems reasonable that the AND should not have been there. It should just have been "If any item in the following list of conditions are met [A, B, C]", even if it seems syntactically less polite, there's at least no ambiguity as to what it means.