Justices Amendment (Complaint Validation) Act 2009 (TAS)

The Justices Amendment (Complaint Validation) Act 2009, was challenged by the Attorney General of Tasmania, who sought to invalidate it on the basis that it was inconsistent with the Tasmanian Constitution. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, with the Honourable Justice Atkinson presiding. The Attorney General argued that the Act was inconsistent with the Tasmanian Constitution as it purported to confer upon public officers a right to bring a complaint under the Justices Act 1959 which the Constitution provided could only be exercised by an individual.

The court was required to determine whether the Act was valid, and whether it was consistent with the Tasmanian Constitution. In particular, the court had to consider whether the Act was inconsistent with section 18 of the Tasmanian Constitution, which provides that the right to bring a complaint under the Justices Act can only be exercised by an individual. The court also had to consider whether the Act was inconsistent with section 1 of the Tasmanian Constitution, which provides that the right to bring a complaint under the Justices Act can only be exercised by an individual.

The court held that the Act was inconsistent with the Tasmanian Constitution, and was therefore invalid. The court found that the Act purported to confer upon public officers a right to bring a complaint under the Justices Act which the Constitution provided could only be exercised by an individual. The court held that this was inconsistent with section 18 of the Tasmanian Constitution, and therefore the Act was invalid. The court also held that the Act was inconsistent with section 1 of the Tasmanian Constitution, and therefore the Act was also invalid on this basis.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania invalidated the Justices Amendment (Complaint Validation) Act 2009 on the basis that it was inconsistent with the Tasmanian Constitution. The court found that the Act purported to confer upon public officers a right to bring a complaint under the Justices Act which the Constitution provided could only be exercised by an individual. The court held that this was inconsistent with section 18 of the Tasmanian Constitution, and therefore the Act was invalid. The court also held that the Act was inconsistent with section 1 of the Tasmanian Constitution, and therefore the Act was also invalid on this basis. The Act was therefore declared to be invalid and of no effect.