Re Senator Robert Wood - [1988] HCATrans 37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SITTING AS THE COURT OF
DISPUTED RETURNS
In the matter of -

The Corrrrnonwealth Electoral Act

1918-1980

Registry No C3 of 1988
Questions referred pursuant to
section 377 of the Corrrrnonwealth
Electoral Act 1918
RE SENATOR ROBERT WOOD

MASON CJ
WILSON J
BRENNAN J
DEANE J
DAWSON J
TOOHEY J
GAUDRON J

Wood(2)
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 11 ~..ARCH 1988, AT 10.18 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia

ClTl/1/RB 1 11/3/88

MR G. GRIFFITH, QC, Solicitor-General for the Connnonwealth:
If the Court pleases, I appear for the
Attorney-General for the Connnonwealth.
(instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)
The terms of Your Honour's order of 2 March

grants leave to name counsel who then appeared for

the Attorney to appear. I seek to appear in
substitution for him.

MASON CJ: Yes.
MR K. MASON, QC, Solicitor-General for New South Wales:
If Your Honour pleases, I appear for the
State of New South Wales.
(instructed by Crown Solicitor for New South Wales)
Your Honour, there has been some discussion amongst

those present at the bar table as to a suggested order

of submissions. I do not know what the Court's
view is on the matter.

MASON CJ: I do not think the Court has a view at the moment.
MR MASON: Do Your Honours wish me to indicate that now,
or to take the appearances?

MASON CJ: Yes, you may as well do so.

MR MASON: The suggestion of those present is that I would
address first, followed by my learned friend Dr Griffith,
followed by Mr Robertson for the Electoral Connnission,
followed by Mr Herbert for the State of Queensland.
Messrs Mackerras and Haldane-Stevenson have indicated
that they are content to put their addresses at any
appropriate stage and the suggestion is that they
follow in the order that I have mentioned
thereafter, followed by Miss Coombs who appears for
Mrs Nile and Mr Kenzie who appears for Senator Wood.
There is some factual material which Miss Coombs
wishes to explore at an early stage as to whether

that material is before the Court on the reference.

MASON CJ: Yes. When you say at an early stage, it is

intended to raise that matter first, is it?

MR MASON: Yes. I understand she wants to raise that at the
outset.

(Continued on page 3)

ClTl/2/HS 11/3/88
Wood(2)
MASON CJ: Yes. Yes, well, the order of addresses indicated
by the Solicitor for New South Wales is acceptable
to the Court.

MR R. KENZIE, QC: May it please the Court, I appear for

Senator Wood. Leave was granted pursuant to
section 378 on the last occasion. (instructed
by R.L. Whyburn & Assoc)

MASON CJ:,Yes, Mr Kenzie.

MR A. HERBERT: If it please the Court, I appear for the
Attorney-r-enera1 of tt-.e <::tate of Qu 0 ensland.
An appearance was entered on the last occasion
pursuant to section 78 of the JUDICIARY ACT.
(instructed by Crown Soli<'itnr fnr Q11eensl!'lnd'

MASON CJ: Yes, Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re Senator Robert Wood

Details

AGLC: Re Senator Robert Wood [1988] HCATrans 37
Case: [1988] HCATrans 37
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia, sitting as the Court of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, heard submissions in a matter concerning Senator Robert Wood. Appearances were noted for the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth, the State of New South Wales, Senator Wood, the Attorney-General of the State of Queensland, Mrs Nile, and the Australian Electoral Commission. Counsel for the parties indicated a proposed order of submissions, with a preliminary matter regarding the factual material before the Court to be raised by counsel for Mrs Nile.

The central legal issue before the Court, as indicated by the proceedings, concerned a reference pursuant to section 377 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. While the precise nature of the reference is not detailed in this excerpt, the involvement of various state and federal government representatives, as well as the Electoral Commission, suggests a significant question of electoral law or the eligibility of a Senator. The Court also considered the extent to which interveners, such as Mr Mackerras and Mr Haldane-Stevenson, should be permitted to make oral submissions, given their lack of direct interest in the case and the expectation that their arguments would be contained within filed written submissions.

Orders