Question of Law Reserved (NO. 1 OF 2019)

The matter before the Court was a question of law reserved concerning the validity of Schedule 2 of the Sentencing Act. The dispute arose from the respondent's attempt to introduce extrinsic material, specifically remarks made by members of Parliament during the legislative debate on Schedule 2, as evidence that the legislation was targeted at him. The court comprised Stanley, Nicholson, and Doyle JJ.

The primary legal issue was whether the extrinsic material, comprising parliamentary debates beyond the Second Reading Speech, was admissible to demonstrate that the legislation was enacted with the specific intention of interfering with pending litigation and nullifying court decisions. A related issue was whether the operation and effect of Schedule 2 constituted an impermissible interference with the judicial process, thereby offending Chapter III of the Constitution.

The Court held that the admissibility of extrinsic material to explain the "context" of legislation, particularly when it involves attributing "malevolent designs" to legislators, is limited. Drawing on the High Court's decision in *HA Bachrach Pty Ltd v Queensland*, the Court reasoned that the constitutional validity of legislation is determined by its operation and effect, not by the motives or intentions of individual parliamentarians. While the litigious background of a matter may be relevant context, it does not advance an argument to attribute improper motives to the legislature. The Court found that Schedule 2 did not impair the institutional integrity of the Court or impermissibly interfere with the judicial process in a manner incompatible with its role as a receptacle of federal judicial power.

Consequently, the Court answered the question reserved in the negative, meaning that Schedule 2 was found not to be invalid on the grounds argued.