Si bhnf CC v KS bhnf Is

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Chief Justice Higgins allowed an appeal against a personal protection order made in the absence of the appellant, Si bhnf CC. The appeal raised questions as to the validity of the order, which was made by a Deputy Registrar, and the operation of s 51A of the Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2001 (ACT). The court considered the appeal on the basis of the appellant’s contention that the order should be set aside for failure to give him an opportunity to be heard. The court also considered whether the order was consistent with the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). The court found that the order was invalid and set it aside. It found that the order was made by an officer of the ACT Executive and not by a magistrate. The court found that the order was not consistent with the Human Rights Act and was inconsistent with the proper separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. The court found that the order was inconsistent with the right to a fair hearing and the right of a child to be properly represented by an adult guardian. The court also found that the order was inconsistent with the right to a judicial determination according to the rules of natural justice. The court held that s 51A of the Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2001 (ACT) empowered but did not mandate the making of a final order in the absence of a conforming objection. The court held that s 51A of the Act did not oust the other provisions of the Act relevant to the making of a final order. The court held that s 51A of the Act did not preclude a magistrate from declining to make a final order against a minor who had no litigation guardian. The court held that s 51A of the Act did not preclude a respondent to an order made ex parte from applying to set it aside. The court held that the order was invalid and set it aside.