FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Pickering v The Commonwealth [2007] FCA 1471
JEFFREY PICKERING v THE COMMONWEALTH
WAD 159 OF 2007FRENCH J
6 SEPTEMBER 2007
PERTH
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
WAD 159 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
JEFFREY PICKERING
ApplicantAND:
THE COMMONWEALTH
Respondent
JUDGE:
FRENCH J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 SEPTEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE:
PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
WAD 159 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
JEFFREY PICKERING
ApplicantAND:
THE COMMONWEALTH
Respondent
JUDGE:
FRENCH J
DATE:
6 SEPTEMBER 2007
PLACE:
PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mr Pickering seeks leave to appeal against a decision of Siopis J made on 17 August 2007. His Honour dismissed the application on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of success. The dismissal order was made under s 31A of the Federal Court Act of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). Mr Pickering wishes to appeal against that decision and, because it was a decision made under s 31A, requires leave to appeal. The proposed grounds of appeal in his notice do not disclose any legal basis which would suggest that his appeal would have any prospect of success. I am therefore going to dismiss the application for leave to appeal.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice French. Associate:
Dated: 20 September 2007
The applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent:
Mr PR Macliver
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 6 September 2007 Date of Judgment: 6 September 2007
- AGLC
- Pickering v The Commonwealth [2007] FCA 1471
- Case
- [2007] FCA 1471
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the provisions in question were valid exercises of parliamentary power under section 51 of the Constitution. This involved assessing whether the provisions were suitable and adapted to achieve the purported objective of protecting national security and whether they were consistent with the principles of representative government and the protection of political communication. The court also considered whether the provisions imposed an unjustifiable burden on the freedom of political communication.
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. It found that the provisions in question were a valid exercise of parliamentary power under section 51 of the Constitution, and that they did not unjustifiably burden the freedom of political communication. The court held that the provisions were necessary to protect national security and were consistent with the principles of representative government. The court concluded that the provisions did not infringe upon the constitutionally protected right to freedom of political communication to an unjustifiable extent.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: FRENCH J
Full text does not contain this section.