1st April 2008 AEV To Senior Constable Micheal Hobson, (7 enclosures) Considering the contents of the .. Which leaves open to question the Jurisdiction of the Courts in Victoria. Which I feel must be clarified in the first instance. (12) 8th April 2008 Marybrough Magistrates Court Informant Micheal Hobson, Defendant Les McDonald founder of bebuybac the Concerned Australians, Chief Lore Officer Aboriginal Embassy Victoria. In answer to Charge 1. the Defendant reserves his plea on this, Charge 2. The Defendant request the Court to clarify the Jurisdiction of the Courts over the Aboriginal People of Victoria. Charge 3. The Defendant admits that he used Cannabis in September 2007, when staying in South Australia. (13) 1st July 2008 To the Attorney-General Rob Hulls, Re Court Jurisdiction, 1. Has the Victorian Parliament the proper legislated power to make laws for the Aboriginal people of Victoria, 2. if the Courts Jurisdiction is question in the Magistrates Court, should the matter then be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria to address the Jurisdiction issue. (14) 21st July 2008 To Minister for Mental Health Ms. Lisa May Neville. Letter of 12 February 2008 , which raised the doubt over the Victorian Parliament/Government powers to make laws for the indigenous people of Victoria (15) 3rd August 2008 To the Attorney-General Rob Hulls, Re Court Jurisdiction, I write to bring to your attention that as yet I have not received any response to the urgent issues raised in my letter date July 2008. As this matter is most urgent and of growing public interest , It would be greatly appreciated if you attend to the matters raised at your earliest opportunity. (16) 13th August 2008 From Department of Justice on behalf of Attorney-General Rob Hulls... Matters you raise are legal issues; neither the Attorney-General nor any public servant can provide you with legal advice about your matter (17) Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 No. 43 of 2006 (18) Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 No. 43 of 2006 Division 3—Interpretation of laws 32 Interpretation (1) So far as it is possible to do so consistently with their purpose, all statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights. (2) International law and the judgments of domestic, foreign and international courts and tribunals relevant to a human right may be considered in interpreting a statutory provision. (3) This section does not affect the validity of— (a) an Act or provision of an Act that is incompatible with a human right; or (b) a subordinate instrument or provision of a subordinate instrument that is incompatible with a human right and is empowered to be so by the Act under which it is made. 33 Referral to Supreme Court (1) If, in a proceeding before a court or tribunal, a question of law arises that relates to the application of this Charter or a question arises with respect to the interpretation of a statutory provision in accordance with this Charter, that question may be referred to the Supreme Court if— (a) a party has made an application for referral; and (b) the court or tribunal considers that the question is appropriate for determination by the Supreme Court. (2) If a question has been referred to the Supreme Court under subsection (1), the court or tribunal referring the question must not— (a) make a determination to which the question is relevant while the referral is pending; or (b) proceed in a manner or make a determination that is inconsistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court on the question. (3) If a question is referred under subsection (1) by the Trial Division of the Supreme Court, the referral is to be made to the Court of Appeal. (4) Despite anything contained in any other Act, if a question arises of a kind referred to in subsection (1), that question may only be referred to the Supreme Court in accordance with this section. 34 Attorney-Generals right to intervene s. 34 (1) The Attorney-General may intervene in, and may be joined as a party to, any proceeding before any court or tribunal in which a question of law arises that relates to the application of this Charter or a question arises with respect to the interpretation of a statutory provision in accordance with this Charter. (2) If the Attorney-General intervenes in a proceeding under this section, then, for the purpose of the institution and prosecution of an appeal from an order made in that proceeding, the Attorney-General may be taken to be a party to the proceeding
Posted on: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 21:22:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015