Boland v Hughes

[1988] HCATrans 195

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Registry No C14 of 1988

B e t w e e n -

VENNARD MICHAEL BOLAND

Plaintiff

and

COLIN ANFIELD HUGHES

(Australian Electoral Commissioner)

Defendant

Application for interim injunction

MASON CJ

( In	Chambers)
Boland

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ·oN "FRIDAY, 2 SEPTEMBER 1988, AT 10.20 AM

(Continued from 1/9/88)

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

C3Tl/l/PLC 40 2/9/88

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, Mr Solicitor?
MR GRIFFITH:	Your Honour asked me two questions yesterday

which I was unable to answer. With Your Honours

leave, may I give answers to those questions now?

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
MR GRIFFITH:	The first question, Your Honour, was whether

there is any relevant material in the convention

debates? The answer is, no. The second question,

Your Honour, was why is the bill in this form? The

answer is to that question that in the first report

to the Constitutional Commission the corrnnission

recorrnnended the three rights and freedoms as are

expressed in chapter IX of its report in the form
of the three matters covered by this bill and

annexed on pages 805 and 808, Your Honour, of its

report, a bill which substantially is in the form

of the Constitution Alteration (Rights and

Freedoms) Bill with some slight variance in

expression with reference to "Trial by jury",

section 80. If I could hand Your Honour a copy

of that recorrnnendation.

There is also included in the draft bill,

Your Honour, a proposal in respect of a new

section 117 but that is not contained in

t:he Constitution Alteration(Rights and Freedoms)

Bill. So, it would seem, Your Honour, that the

bill which has been passed by both Houses reflects

the recommendation of the Constitutional Corrnnission.

If Your Honour pleases.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Thank you, Mr Solicitor. You do not wish

to make any comment about that, I take it,

Mr Sheils?

MR SHEILS:	No, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	I have come to the conclusion that the application

for interlocutory relief should be refused.

I publish my reasons and I make an order dismissing the application for interlocutory relief, with costs.

MR GRIFFITH:  Your Honour, as to that, the Attorney-General for

the Commonwealth intervenes and does not seek an

order for costs.

HIS HONOUR:	Does not seek an order for costs?
MR GRIFFITH:	No, Your Honour, as intervenor we take the view

we appear pursuant to section 78B of the JUDICIARY ACT.

HIS HONOUR: Well, in the circumstances, Mr Solicitor, are you

content if I merely make an order dismissing the

application?

MR GRIFFITH:  Yes, Your Honour.

C3Tl/2/PLC	41	1/9/88
Boland

HIS HONOUR:  With no order as to costs?

MR GRIFFITH: Yes, Your Honour. And I understand, Your Honour,

so far as the respondent is concerned, the costs

incurred are nominal.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, so that one need not be concerned about the

respondent's costs?

MR GRIFFITH:  No order is sought for the respondent's costs.

HIS HONOUR:  Very well. I dismiss the application for

interlocutory relief and make no order as to costs.

MR SHEILS:  May it please the Court.

AT 10.23 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

C3Tl/3/PLC	42	1/9/88
Boland