The State v The People. Government spurns hard-earned privilege of 1688

The Freedom of Information Legislation fights the 1688 Rights Law in the Supreme Court to access information. Rex Patrick Reports.

On December 4, a discussion will be held on the South Australian Court of Appeal Court on how information laws and parliamentary freedom laws work when they come together. Are they working in Harmony (my offer), or does one freedom kill the other?

And how much weight should be taken to a law that first entered into force in 1688, including both the federal and state constitutions? Perhaps Mike Wait, the general lawyer of South Australia, can carry his rifle. Maybe Chad Jacobi, the adviser of my king, can brand the lighter cloth. And perhaps three judges can return to their traditional dresses and wear the 17th century wigs.

To tell this story, I will have to go back to King Charles I and then his reign.

Die for privilege

In 1629, desperate for the fund, King Charles invited parliament to approve certain financial measures. Instead, nine members of the House of Commons continued to discuss three decisions targeting the King’s advisors (it would be betrayed to direct them to the King).

Despite the attempts to close the discussion of the Speaker of the Assembly, upon the king’s instruction, the doors of the room were locked and discussed, the king’s soldiers were beaten out loud at the outside doors. The most dramatic challenge of the sovereign will and the sovereign armed officials were reported in the news pages and discussed in the belly and abdomen.

In contrast, the king rolled the deputies, put them in the London Tower, and invited them to apologize. Four of the deputies refused to apologize and officially accused and was brought before the king’s bench. The deputies argued that they had the right to freedom of expression because of the ‘privilege of parliament’, but Charles’ judges were sentenced to some pressure on the judges and were sentenced to heavy fines and returned to the tower.

Eliot, the first martyr of the parliament died of consumption in the tower in 1632. King Charles was later tried for persecution and betrayal, convicted in 1649 and his head.

Rights Law 1688

Eliot’s martyrdom was rewarded in 1688 when William was invited to take the throne from Orange, when his forces signed the Law of Rights, which admitted that the ‘divine right of the kings’ came from any concept rather than any concept.

The bill established key democratic rights; Parliaments will be free choices, there will be no ruthless and unusual punishment, taxes will not be taken without the permission of parliament and so on.

Article 9 of the states of rights,

Freedom of speech in parliament and discussions or trial should not be questioned in any court or outside the parliament.

The ‘other place’ is considered to be a court or commission member where questioning or questioning in the parliament may result in a legal result.

The aim of this privilege is to ensure the independence and integrity of the legislative process, to allow the government to discuss and examine the government without fear of external intervention or legal difficulty.

This is our privilege

Although Captain Arthur Philip is 100 years older than Australia’s British colonization, the privilege enters the Australian laws through the 49th part of the Australian Constitution and the constitutions and actions of other states.

Many people think that this is a privilege of ‘bloody politicians’, but that’s wrong. In the Hearne V Street case of the 1988 Supreme Court, the Chief Justice Gleeson said:

The privilege of parliament is available for the benefit of people governed by the laws made by the relevant parliament.

Indeed, the privileges of a parliament are closely linked to the historical privileges of the people. Just as the legal privilege belongs to the customer, the privilege of parliament belongs to citizens. It allows deputies and senators to say that they cannot say outside without the risk of suing the court in Parliament.

FOI Effects

If you try to use the laws of information freedom to access the summarys in which the authorities are preparing for Senate forecasts, you will be almost absolutely successful. They are usually released and normally contain information about what is happening within a department or government agency.

However, in all states, they will reject access to similar abstracts by saying that releasing the briefings under FO will violate the privilege of parliament. The same 1688 provision, the same foi exemption, different results.

So I thought I would deal with the states starting from my own country.

Random FOI process was exposed. What is scam?

Legal argument

The legal argument is quite simple. How can he explain that he is ready to inform the appearance of an official before a parliamentary committee and contains any ‘in a court or elsewhere (court/commission) any questioning or push’?

Hansard transcript of parliamentary transactions draws the privilege of parliament, but can be used anywhere except for a court or another place (court/commission). The description is not legal test.

The question was handled by the Supreme Court of Justice Hughes. Just before the counter was receiving, Justice Hughes worked at the South Australian Crown Office, who filed FOI cases for the government’s defending the privacy of government. I usually have a record of winning a very good foI in the courts, but I lost five FOI cases from six before Justice Hughes.

This includes the case of Parliamentary privileges subject to the appeal application that it has now determined:

“I think that the FOI law creates a legal situation in which the government’s executive branch is equipped with the status of“ other place ”in the fulfillment of the obligation to manage the law laws.

How terrible it would be to use our privilege to keep information from us.

Attractive

Appeal is important because Justice Hughes’s decision can be used by FEDs to stop the ongoing release of the senate forecasts.

Still, I trust myself. Chad Jacobi KC’s lighter was loaded and is very capable of using it. And I’m sure the lawyer Mike Wait SC only has limited rifle balls in the bandlier. We just have to wait and see how judges feel about something.

Delay, denial, defend. FOI process is broken