VLAD RETAINED READ THIS SLOWLY AND TELL ME WHAT YOU SEE >>>>> In March 2014, the plaintiff commenced proceedings in the original jurisdiction of the Court seeking declarations that the challenged laws were invalid on the ground that they were incompatible with the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff had not been charged with, and did not suggest that he had committed, or intended to commit, any offence. Accordingly, no restriction was imposed upon the plaintiffs freedom of action by the VLAD Act, the new penalty provisions of the Criminal Code or the new provisions of the Bail Act. The High Court unanimously held that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek a declaration that those laws were invalid. The plaintiff argued that the laws creating the new offences in the Criminal Code and the Liquor Act impermissibly enlisted the court to give effect to the Parliaments or the executives intention to destroy criminal organisations. This argument was not accepted. The majority of the Court held that these laws did not require the courts to proceed otherwise than in accordance with the processes which are understood to characterise the exercise of judicial power.
Posted on: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 04:48:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015