R v Goreng-Goreng

Case [2008] ACTSC 74

HUMAN RIGHTS

R v TJANARA GORENG-GORENG
[2008] ACTSC 74 (18 AUGUST 2008)

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – pre-trial application – admission of evidence – regulations – whether invalid and inadmissible – found to be valid.
STATUTES – delegated legislation – constitutional guarantee of freedom of political communication – uncertainty – ultra vires – found to be valid.

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 70(1)
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)
Freedom of Information Act 1989 (ACT)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 78B
Marketing of Primary Products Act 1935 (Vic)
Public Sector Management Act 1995 (SA), s 57(g)
Public Service Act 1999 (Cth), s 13(10), 79(1)

Public Service Regulations 1999 (Cth), reg 2.1
Prices Regulation Code No 1818
Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board Regulations 1953

R v Djerke [2008] ACTSC 41
R v Tran (2002) 167 FLR 345
Lane v The Queen (1996) 66 FCR 144
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1
Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106
Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1
Levy v State of Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579
Bennett v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2003) 134 FCR 334
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1997) 189 CLR 520
De Freitas v Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housings and Ors [1999] 1 AC 69
King Gee Clothing Co Pty Ltd and Ors v The Commonwealth and Anor (1945) 71 CLR 184
Cann’s Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth and Anor (1946) 71 CLR 210
Anchorage Butchers Ltd v Law (1939) 42 WALR 40
Merrell v Roberts (1909) 26 WN(NSW) 73
Ireland v Wilson [1936] 3 All ER 358
Shanahan v Scott (1957) 96 CLR 245
Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1990) 21 ALD 69
Hopper v Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board (Vic) (1939) 61 CLR 665
Jacobs v Gray (1941) 14 ALJ 434
Carter v Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board (Vic) (1942) 66 CLR 557
Peppers Self-Service Stores Pty Ltd v Scott (1958) 98 CLR 606
Utah Constructions and Engineering Pty Ltd and Anor v Pataky [1966] 2 WLR 197
Willocks v Anderson (1971) 124 CLR 293
Carbines v Powell (1925) 36 CLR 88
Morton v Union Steamship Company of New Zealand Ltd (1951) 83 CLR 402
Esmonds Motors Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1970) 120 CLR 463
Deing v Tarola [1993] 2 VR 163
Eremin v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1990) 21 ALD 69
Something Better Pty Ltd and Ors v Pyramid Building Society (In Liq) (1996) 135 ALR 297 O’Connell v Nixon (2007) 16 VR 440

Denis O’Brien, “FOI Report:  Enhancing Accountability” (1996) 7 Public Law Review 135
Dennis Pearce and Stephen Argument, Delegated Legislation in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, Sydney:  2005, 3rd ed), Chapters 15, 22

No. SCC 369 OF 2007

Judge:             Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              18 August 2008

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 369 of 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )          

THE QUEEN

AND:

TJANARA GORENG-GORENG

Continue reading R v Goreng-Goreng

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Goreng-Goreng [2008] ACTSC 74
Case
[2008] ACTSC 74
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Goreng-Goreng, the applicant sought to exclude certain evidence from the trial, arguing it was obtained in breach of a regulation that was deemed invalid. The nature of the dispute involved the admissibility of evidence pursuant to a specific regulation under the Public Service Regulations 1999 (Commonwealth). The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the primary issue was whether the evidence obtained under the contested regulation could be admitted in the trial.

The legal issues centred on the validity of the regulation under which the evidence was obtained, as well as its compliance with constitutional guarantees, particularly the freedom of political communication. The applicant argued that the regulation was invalid due to uncertainty and that it potentially contravened the constitutional guarantee. Additionally, the applicant contended that the regulation was beyond the scope of the enabling legislation, rendering it ultra vires. The court was required to determine whether the regulation was indeed invalid and, if so, whether the evidence obtained under it should be excluded from the trial.

The court found that the regulation in question was valid and not in breach of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of political communication. It dismissed the contention that the regulation was uncertain or beyond the scope of the enabling legislation. Consequently, the court held that the evidence obtained under the regulation was admissible. The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, affirming the validity of the regulation and the admissibility of the evidence obtained under it.

The final orders of the court were that the application to exclude evidence of Regulation 2.1 of the Public Service Regulations 1999 (Commonwealth) be dismissed. This decision upheld the validity of the regulation and allowed the evidence to be used in the trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application to exclude evidence of Regulation 2.1 of the Public Service Regulations 1999 (Commonwealth) be 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

Full text does not contain this section.