Case Examples for the Exam

[Spreadbury]

I hate case examples myself, but I thought I may start to accumulate them here, so if anybody else wants to post a concise summary and/ or explanation of a case they're more than welcome, particularly in the area of affecting the relationship between the states and the commonwealth. If anyone is willing to contribute, it's helpful

Victoria v. The Commonwealth (1926)
"Established that money grants made under section 96 should be used specifically for the purpose defined in the grant. The states therefore had to spend the money in the way set by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth could dictate how the money would be used even if the purpose was outside the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth. In Moran v. Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) (1940) the High Court stated that the Commonwealth was not prohibited by the Constitution from making grants that discriminate between the states."

[claire92]

Great idea, hopefully we can accumulate a few!

Negligence (using precedence)
•   Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) AC 85

FACTS:  Mr G bought some underwear made by AKM from a store in Adelaide.  Mr G suffered dermatitis as a result of wearing the underwear.  It was later discovered that the condition was caused by an excessive use of chemicals in the manufacturing of the underwear. 

HELD:  Mr G was deemed to be a ‘neighbour’.  He was a person closely and directly affected by the act of the manufacturer and the manufacturer ought to have had him in mind as being affected when making the underwear.  The manufacturer had a duty to take reasonable care to avoid act which they could reasonably foresee would be likely to injure consumers such as Mr G.  Mr G was successful in his claim for damages.

-   The principles of these cases have been applied and extended to many other cases.

[andy456]

TRIGWELL v. STATE GOVERNMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION  [1979] HCA 40; (1979) 142 CLR 617

A lady driving along a highway at night swerved to avoid a sheep that had escaped from a broken fence on the farmland beside the highway. The car crossed the divider and hit another car, driving in the opposite direction. The women that crossed the divider was killed and the family in the second car (the Trigwells) were injured.

The farmer was taken to the High Court as he had not kept his fence in good keeping therefore inadvertantly contributing, negligently, to the deaths of the passengers. The High Court decided that the farmer was not responsible and hence did not have to pay damages to the Trigwells. This decision was made using the precedent of Searle v. Wallbank from the British House of Lords. However, In the justices obiter dictum they called for parliamentary intervention to abrogate the precedent as they believed it was wrong and that it was not the job of them to do so.

Parliament abrogated the courts decision and amended the Wrongs Act

This case exhibits the relationship between courts and parliament, disapproving and the consevatism of judges in the making of laws. It's a good alrounder case to know.

Some more info on it if you want to use it properly 
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/142clr617.html
www.ilearn.net.au/legalstudies/contents/resources/trigwell_case.doc

[Abdi]

Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) ------ High Court interpretation of the constitution!

(popularly known as the Tasmanian Dam Case) was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on July 1, 1983. The case was a landmark decision in Australian constitutional law, and was a significant moment in the history of conservation in Australia. The case centred around the proposed construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Gordon River in Tasmania, which was supported by the Tasmanian government, but opposed by the Australian federal government and environmentalist groups.

The case revolved around several major constitutional issues, the most important being the constitutional validity of the World Heritage Act. The division of powers between the Australian federal government and the individual state governments is defined by section 51 of the Australian constitution. The federal government had taken a range of actions, which they claimed were authorised under specific subsections of section 51. The Tasmanian government disputed these claims.

Section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution gives the federal parliament the power to make laws with regard to external affairs, a nebulously defined provision. The Hawke government passed the World Heritage Act under this provision, claiming that the Act was giving effect to an international treaty to which Australia was a party, in this case the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,which governs UNESCO's World heritage program.

The Tasmanian government (as well as the governments of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland) opposed this action. Allowing the federal government such broad new powers would infringe on the States' power to legislate in many areas, and would upset the "federal balance".

[AVeryAverageUsername]

Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) ------ High Court interpretation of the constitution!

Following on from this was where the Tasmanian Government changed the law outlawing homosexuality in its criminal code, due to the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994 (Cth.) linking the freedom of consenting sex of over 18s in private to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Tasmanians didn't take it to the High Court because they thought that despite their criminal code being contravened they thought it would end up as much the same verdict.

I find that a good case study (Even if it doesn't seem to have a name) as it shows how court decisions can influence future legislation from parliament, even if that particular matter isn't taken to court.

[s123456]

hey do you reckon wed need to say the full 'Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983)' or could we just say 'Franklin Dams case' ?
Thanks

[Christiano]

The Franklin Dam case is fine

[mikee65]

Franklin/Tasmania Dam case

[Visionz]

franklin dam + precedent for human rights sexual conduct act
trigwell case
brislan case
mcbain case
 

[saaaaaam]

I'm going through my notes at the moment. My teacher had way too many examples for us to remember. Here are some of them:


The Law of Insanity – Common Law
•   Defence of insanity developed from an English case
•   1843 – Daniel McNaughton committed murder; supposedly suffered paranoid delusions
•   Jury was troubled by this and didn’t want to hang a sick man
•   He was aquited, but ordered to a mental institution
•   This case led to McNaughton’s rule:
         -     Everyone is considered sane unless proven otherwise when at the time of committing the crime.
         -     To be insane means that one did not know the nature of what they did, the quality of the act or did not know what they were doing was wrong
•   The Victorian Crimes Act 1958 has a provision for insanity
•   Later replaced by the term mental impairment
•   Crimes (Mental Impairment and unfitness to be tried) Act (Vic) 1977

Hedley Byrne v. Heller (1964) AUS
(Negligence, a progression of Snail in the bottle/Grant v. Australian Knitting Mill)
- Banker was asked to provide information to a creditor – how credit worthy another person was
- The credit was given but never repaid
- Creditor sued banker claiming he was owed a duty of care
- However, because the banker had used a disclaimer, the judge decided in favour of the banker. Had the banker not used the disclaimer he would have been liable. This then extended to advise given by doctors, lawyers, financers etc

The Law of Abortion
•   s. 65 of the Crimes Act (VIC) 1958  states that abortion is illegal
•   A doctor was then charged for administering  an abortion in R v.Davidson
•   Justice Menheritt was interpreting  s. 65 of the crimes act, particularly the words ‘unlawfully administers’
•   Justice Menheritt interpreted the statute to mean that an abortion can be legally obtained if the physician believed going full term will adversely affect the woman mentally or physically.
•   VIC Parliament has since codified this and made abortion legal in The Abortion Reform Act (VIC) 2009.
•   Now in statute women are allowed to receive an abortion up to 24 weeks

Rape in Marriage Case
- In the case of R v. David Norman Johns, a man was charged of raping his wife
- The judge followed an old common law rule from the 1700s that stated when a couple married the woman became the possession of the man and could expect all marital obligations including sex
- The charges were dropped because under the law rape within a marriage was lawful
- There was public outrage and within months parliament changed the law.
- The Crimes (Amendment) Act 1985, s. 62 was changed to:
“The existence of marriage does not constitute or raise any presumption of consent by a person to an act of sexual penetration of another person.”


Examples of Statutory Interpretation
1.   The Studded Belt Case – Deing v. Tarola 1993
- Young man charged under the Control of Weapons Act (VIC) 1990 with possessing a regulated weapon. Was wearing a black studded belt to hold up his trousers.
- ‘regulated weapon’ was to be interpreted
- After consulting a dictionary ‘regulated weapon’ was not a studded belt when holding up trousers, but could be if used as a weapon
- Restricted definition of ‘weapon’ to objects that were likely to be used as one.

2.   Kevin’s Case – AG v. Kevin and Jennifer and Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (2003)

- Kevin was born a girl but had under gone gender reassignment surgery
- Kevin & Jennifer married and applied to have their marriage validated
- Marriage Act 1961 (cth) required marriage to be between a man and a woman
- Attorney General argued that Kevin was born female and therefore marriage was not valid
- ‘man’ was to be interpreted
- Family court found ‘man’ to mean anyone who was a man at the time of the marriage
- Kevin and Jennifers marriage was validated
- Word man was expanded to take into account changes in society and technology

[chrisjb]

ahh legal, here's the case studies I actualy used in the exam:

Joh Bjelke-Peterson's Jerrymander (QLD)

Mr Bjelke-Peterson (BJ) altered the electorate boundaries so that his party required less seats to win government. Used it in the final quesiton.

Franklin Dam

Explained above.

VLRC report into the defences of homocide (2006?)

After the ramage case, the VLRC investigated the defences to homocide and abolised the defence of provocation and introduced the partial defence of self defence. I used it for the final question to show how the parliament had extensive resources.

Mabo Case

Explained in detail above. I used this in the final question to show the relationship b/w courts+parl't

Some recent case I had heard about from Queensland on hack radio the day before the exam regarding abortion (I think it was abortion...)

I cannot remember this case at all, sorry... but I remember using it in the final question.

very specific part of the what's her face who's baby got eaten by a dingo case

I used this in the jury question because I could remember reading somewhere that some of the jurors had admited they had not understood some of the complex evidence presented.

the new parliamentry make up (not actualy a case study I know...)

Once again, the final question to demonstrate the problems with democracy

the howard (1999?) GST bill

amended by the democrats in the senate. Very good example of hostile senate and the advantages of this. Used in the last question.

Negligence Cases

These were in the final question too. i went for quantity over quality here and said something like 'the law of negligence was developed over time from a quasi-contract law area in cases such as heaven v. pender and langridge v levy untill it was developed into a tort in it's own right with the case of Donoghue v Stevenson. This was later developed further by the courts to include complex areas of negligence such as negligent advice as shown in (name of the case that I now can't remember... it was someone v leichart municipal council).



These are the ones I didn't use in the exam but that are unlikely to be used by other people and are therefore better than generic ones:

Farrah Jamma case

Perfect for an unfair and unbiased hearing. Could also be used to show judicial/jury prejudice. Farrah was charged wtih rape. Got convicted, later found that investigation and trial were botched and it was very likely that Farrah was discriminated agianst at all stages of the system (he was african). Google it and you'll find heaps of very good articles on it.

Theophanous

Remember one name and get two case studies here. You have:

R. v Theophanous

Mr Theophanous was charged with rape, thrown out at comittal hearing. (perfect for effective use of committal hearing/ crim pretrial)

Theophanous v. Herald and weekly times

This was the case that established the implied right of freedom of political communication.

(BUT REMEBER the two cases are of two people with the same last name. The first is Theo Theophanous, the latter is of some other older guy.)


There's one more that I realy want to add in, they looked at it on 4 corners and it's a realy good example for elements of an effective legal system but I can't think of his name. I think it was in south australia and this druggy homeless guy got pinned for committing a murder of some lady in a shop and spent a few years in prison and then got a retrial and released.


I'll improve the quality of this post later on.

[eeps]

Below are two High Court cases which may be of use for the end-of-year exam.

First Uniform Tax Case

The South Australian government challenged the national income tax. It argued that taxation was concurrent power, and that the new tax was so high that it was not able to impose an income tax. The High Court disagreed, and hence, Section 109 of the Constitution, the Commonwealth overrides the states if there is an inconsistency. The impact of this case increased the financial power of the Commonwealth.

Roach Case

Vicki Lee Roach challenged the Electoral Act (2006) that stated prisoners could not vote. Roach went to the High Court challenging it, saying it was constitutionally invalid as it breached the implied right of political communication; stopping representative government. The High Court decided that the complete ban was unnecessary, so parliament cannot pass laws that unreasonably take away the right to vote of a class of persons that would interfere with representative government. However, banning a sub-class is valid (i.e. 3 years or more) as they have engaged in conduct that was viewed was taking them outside community expectations.

[drw116]

Donaghue V. Stevenson (snail in a bottle case) where the precedent of negligence was developed - manufacture owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. This British case was later influential on the Australian case (persuasive precedent) Grant v the Australian knitting mills

[oizoo]

Below are two High Court cases which may be of use for the end-of-year exam.

First Uniform Tax Case

The South Australian government challenged the national income tax. It argued that taxation was concurrent power, and that the new tax was so high that it was not able to impose an income tax. The High Court disagreed, and hence, Section 109 of the Constitution, the Commonwealth overrides the states if there is an inconsistency. The impact of this case increased the financial power of the Commonwealth.

Roach Case

Vicki Lee Roach challenged the Electoral Act (2006) that stated prisoners could not vote. Roach went to the High Court challenging it, saying it was constitutionally invalid as it breached the implied right of political communication; stopping representative government. The High Court decided that the complete ban was unnecessary, so parliament cannot pass laws that unreasonably take away the right to vote of a class of persons that would interfere with representative government. However, banning a sub-class is valid (i.e. 3 years or more) as they have engaged in conduct that was viewed was taking them outside community expectations.

Regarding the Roach case, I understood that the High Court based their decision on the fact that the amendments were invalid as the right to vote were structurally protected by the representative government principle, rather than saying that the right to vote is implied. Pretty minor but possibly somewhere you (could) lose marks. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[michak]

Below are two High Court cases which may be of use for the end-of-year exam.

First Uniform Tax Case

The South Australian government challenged the national income tax. It argued that taxation was concurrent power, and that the new tax was so high that it was not able to impose an income tax. The High Court disagreed, and hence, Section 109 of the Constitution, the Commonwealth overrides the states if there is an inconsistency. The impact of this case increased the financial power of the Commonwealth.

Roach Case

Vicki Lee Roach challenged the Electoral Act (2006) that stated prisoners could not vote. Roach went to the High Court challenging it, saying it was constitutionally invalid as it breached the implied right of political communication; stopping representative government. The High Court decided that the complete ban was unnecessary, so parliament cannot pass laws that unreasonably take away the right to vote of a class of persons that would interfere with representative government. However, banning a sub-class is valid (i.e. 3 years or more) as they have engaged in conduct that was viewed was taking them outside community expectations.

Regarding the Roach case, I understood that the High Court based their decision on the fact that the amendments were invalid as the right to vote were structurally protected by the representative government principle, rather than saying that the right to vote is implied. Pretty minor but possibly somewhere you (could) lose marks. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The right to vote is a structural protection not an implied right
This is because under sections 7 and 24 the house of reps must be directly chosen by the people and representative government so we have a right about how we represent us
However remember the commonwealth can put restrictions on who can vote if they have substanial reason to do so
Hope that helps