Students are required to read and analyse the decision of Millhouse J in Collins v South Australia (1999) 74 SASR 200. Link to the case: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/1999/257.html
You will need to critically reflect on the reasoning offered by the judge, his application of legal precedents and policy considerations.
In order to conduct the analysis, you will need to research the case, the legal authorities referred to and the wider consideration of the case in commentaries and other judicial decisions.
A series of questions have been posed (located below). Some require simple answers, whereas others will require more substantive commentary.
What was the procedural history of the matter?
What were the significant legal issues of the case?
What were the material facts of the case?
In considering the Australian law relevant to the case,
What statute law was binding on Millhouse J?
What case law was binding and what was the precedent rule or principle of each of these cases?
What was the ratio of Millhouse J’s judgment?
The following 4 questions require more detailed research and analysis, as well as more detailed answers. Merely describing is not enough, you need to apply critical thinking.
Under s 7 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1992 (SA) a mandatory injunction cannot be granted against the Crown. What is a mandatory injunction?
What were the grounds upon which the Court found that a Declaration was also unable to be granted against the Crown? In addressing this question explain the nature of a Declaration.
At paragraph  Millhouse J refers to the decision of Brennan J in Re Citizen Limbo (1989) 64 ALJR 241; (1989) 92 ALR 81. You can locate this decision on LexisNexis AU (using the ALR citation) and will need to read this decision in order to answer the following question.
Was that decision even binding upon Millhouse J? In answering this question please also address the following:
- In what jurisdiction was the High Court acting?
- What did the decision concern?
- What is the significance of the quoted extract from Re Citizen Limbo to Millhouse J’s analysis in Collins v South Australia?
At paragraph  Millhouse J states that the effect of the Administrative Decision (Effect of International Instruments) Act 1995 (SA) in South Australia is to make Australia’s involvement in international conventions ‘merely platitudinous and ineffectual’. With respect to international human rights law, arguably, there are other reasons why Australia’s engagement with international human rights might be described as such. Discuss.
Does the decision of Millhouse J still represent good law in 2016? This means you need to determine how this decision is treated in subsequent cases and whether it is properly in conformity with the law.
Order Now: 100% Custom Written - 100% Plagiarism Free