The New South Wales V The Commonwealth Case

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

The Plaintiff’s estate was sequestrated in Federal Magistrates Court on May 12 2009, for failure to pay Council court costs [10]. An application by the Plaintiff for an extension in time to appeal this sequestration was

Section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution of Australia grants exclusive power to the Commonwealth to legislate with regard to external affairs. Since its inception, through the development of case law, the external affairs power has been found to consist of three limbs:

Police officers including approximately six armed members of the “Special Emergency Response Team” forcibly entered the appellants’ (Bulsey & Anor) house. Bulsey was taken from his bed, placed on the floor, handcuffed and dragged out to the street and later charged with riotous assembly and destruction of a building. In subsequent committal proceedings, the respondent conceded it did not have a case against the first appellant. He was discharged. Bulsey (the first appellant) sued the respondent for damages for trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment). Anor (the second appellant) sued the respondent for damages for assault and false imprisonment. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ claims with costs, with judgments in favour of the respondent.

Mr Michael Burch expired while his four wheeler vehicle clean off in YR ( yarra ranges) shire on 13th November, 1998.

Through the progression of history the need for the principles articulated in Engineers’ Case was both necessary and appropriate. Callinan J in Workchoices’ Case made

The Australian Constitution is a rich amalgam of various classical political principles. The concepts of the Rule of Law and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers evident in Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws are both salient examples of political theses that are central to Australian Constitutional Law. The structure of the Constitution itself and decisions of the High Court of Australia unequivocally validate the entrenchment of the doctrine separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution . In particular, the High Court has applied this with relative rigour with respect to the separation of judicial power. The separation of the judicial power is fundamentally critical to upholding the rule of law. The High Court in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs noted that “the separation of the judicial function…advances two constitutional objectives: the guarantee of liberty and, to that end, the independence of Chapter III judges” . Kitto J in R v Davidson also identified that the judiciary should be subject to no other authority but the law itself . This is a critical aspect ensuring the concept of legal equality is upheld. Therefore, its role clearly extends to providing checks and balances on the exercise of power by the legislative and executive arms of government . This ensures the liberty of the law and limits the abuse of the judicial system. Judicial Power is defined as “the power which every sovereign must of necessity have to decide between its subjects

High Court interpretations of the Constitution have also played a vital role in the change of the division of lawmaking power. One example is the Franklin River Dam Case where the Tasmanian Government challenged the Commonwealth Parliament in the High Court over the validity of the World Heritage

the public can put its trust ad faith in but this time it fell apart

64: Original jurisdiction which means it can try all cases dealing with such subjects as:

Commonwealth v. Barbara Winston. On October 17, 2016, in Scott County Circuit Court, Barbara Winston (Winston) pled guilty to one count of obtaining money by false pretense, one count of conspiracy to obtain money by false pretense, one count of Medicaid fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit Medicaid fraud. She was sentenced to five years, with five years suspended, and an indefinite period of probation on each count. The sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. She was also ordered to pay $6,845.97 in restitution, excluded from being a Medicaid provider for 10 years, sentenced to 50 hours of community service and to pay $250 court costs. Winston was hired by her Medicaid eligible mother to provide attendant care and respite

Due to negative aspects that were presented in cases such as the Corey Davis case, the effectiveness of the Australian Legal System in accomplishing justice began to be viewed to demonstrate flaws in certain occasions by the Australian public. The Australian legal system aims to achieve equality and fairness towards the citizens of Australia to avoid anarchy within the nation. This is accomplished by set rules and laws that are created by the government. However, if these rules and laws are to be broken by an individual or a group of people living within the borders of the country, they may face legal consequences that include getting a fine, imprisonment, a life sentence or in some occurrences, a combination of these forms of punishment. In the Corey Davis case, an eleven year old boy that is identified as ‘W’ is sent to trial for committing an offence towards a six year old boy. An outline of the events in the Corey Davis case will be further explored as well as the involvement of the police, the conduct of the court system throughout the investigation of the case and its influence in achieving justice, and a summary of the trial. Furthermore, the debate about the current age limit for doli incapax and whether it is appropriate for modern society will be discussed as the Corey Davis case raised arguments about this topic. The Australian legal system aims to achieve justice, however certain instances such as the Corey Davis case have proved that it may occasionally

The power the Supreme Court has today stems from the case of Marbury v. Madison: a hearing commonly known for the establishment of judicial review (McBride). Through this case, the court under Chief Justice Marshall came to three conclusions: Marbury has the right to be commissioned as a Justice of the Peace, the court is able to provide a writ of mandamus under the Judiciary act of 1789, and the fact that the Supreme Court has the power to issue such a writ under the Judiciary act is unconstitutional (Find Law). The law being referred to in this case is section 13 of the Judiciary act of 1789 which extends the cases in which the court has original jurisdiction (U.S Statue Page). Article III, section 2 states that Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and

1. In Winstead v. Commonwealth, Winstead filed a motion to stop Rainwater from testifying about anything that had occurred during their marriage and to exclude anything they said to each other during their marriage. This motion specifically tried to exclude the conversations between Winstead and Rainwater regarding what she should tell the police about where he was the night of the murder, but the court ruled that conversations between couples about an alibi were not privileged because an alibi was intended for disclosure.

The decisions from other common law jurisdiction such as United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canadian and United States have no authority on Australian courts but Australian judges rather relied on them as an argument in the judgment particular when confront with the absence of binding authority. Traditionally, the decision of superior English courts are paid the highest regards, especially when there is a conflicting of foreign court decisions, and are frequently cited by Australian judges owing to the fact that British is the mother nation of Australia.