Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 4 April 1968


Mr BOWEN (Parramatta) (AttorneyGeneral) - When clause 4 was being settled, this matter was considered at some length. It was considered that no appeal had, in fact, been taken so far and that the likelihood of one being taken from an inferior court was so remote as to make it unnecessary to express the provision in such a way as to cover it. Indeed, it was considered that in the unlikely event of an appeal being taken from an inferior court direct to the Privy Council so that leave was applied fc-T, it would be even more unlikely that leave would be granted. After this clause has been passed, the possibility of the Privy Council's actually considering such a case and granting leave in the face of the section and the policy it expresses is so unlikely that we need not really concern ourselves with it. Should such a case arise and be taken there would be no great difficulty in making a further amendment.

I was interested to hear from the Leader of the Opposition of the case of Cameron v. Davis. I had not bad it in mind when I made the statement in my second reading speech to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. However, I had in mind the possibility of such an appeal. That is why in my second reading speech I referred to confirmation of existing practice rather than confirmation of an existing legal position - because of the possibility that there may have been a prerogative right to grant an appeal from such a court. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for raising this matter, but in all the circumstances I think it will be adequately expressed in the form in which it appears. Therefore I would not seek to amend it.







Suggest corrections