Walker's case (1 Viewer)

[Jonathan A]

yep it is high court of australia because thats what it says above the case heading

Another indication is the "CLR" (Commonwealth Law Reports) - The reporter of the High Court.

 

[Jonathan A]

Isn't Walker the plaintiff and NSW the defendant?

Yes. Walker is the applicant or appellant and New South Wales is the Respondent.

 

[Jonathan A]

Eeek, I thought he was the appellant?!? Because he's already been charged so he's like appealing...It's not like the "first instance".

That's correct. Remember this is an appeal on legal grounds, so he is still a defendent in criminal law, but the title in court would appellant.

 

[Jonathan A]

yeah we need to read 2 as well


• What was the outcome of the case? Consider the technical and practical consequences of the decision.


what are the technical and practical consequences?

In a nutshell, everyone is under the same law. The judge referred to Coe V Commonwealth in his reasoning which stated that we are under the same law. The argument of Walker was Mabo, which was struck out if you like.

 

[Jonathan A]

I just referred to like it setting a precedent....


there's so much reading aye. I like skimmed thru chapter 1 it was getting so wordy!!

how much detail did u read it in?

It's not an interesting read at all!

I took notes from various areas, predominantely legal theories, they are interesting in some ways, but the problem with ALI is that will ask a question, then go on and on about the question and its implications then get side-tracked into something else.

 

[Jonathan A]

Oops my mistake, here's a summary of the case.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/journals/AILR/1996/37.html?query=title(walker+near+nsw)

I am curious to see who's going to bring this link up tomorrow

Oh btw, who are your lecturers/teachers?

Very good work!

Bring up the link, it's a fantastic discovery, from a differing report it seems, (AILR).

My lecturer is Simon Kozlina.

 

[Angel45]

Any1 in 9-11 (monday +thurs) class with Simon?

 

[Angel45]

LOL - I didn't even pick up on that whole u know, bringing a civil case to say that there are no grounds for the criminal case stuff. I totally didn't c that when I 1st read it!!

 

[= Jennifer =]

Yes. Walker is the applicant or appellant and New South Wales is the Respondent.

*gasp* Jonathan was wrong Walker was the plantiff

by the way Jon I thought he was the appellant too

 

[Jonathan A]

*gasp* Jonathan was wrong Walker was the plantiff

by the way Jon I thought he was the appellant too

It was a tricky one, I will accept the defeat lol. I am hoping I made up for it using my explanation of the constitutional powers.

 

[Jonathan A]

Ok so the answer people have wanted.

Walker is the plaintiff or applicant in a case to have a certain argument put forward that Aborigines are not under the same law as the rest of us are. Two main areas are:
NSW has no Legislative Capacity: countered by the NSW Constitution's powers
Customary legal System: He only needs to follow criminal law that is recognised by the Aboriginal customary law, this was countered again by Coe v The Commonwealth.

This was a strike-off case. Very uncommon. It means, that NSW applied to have the argument removed before going to a full court, saying it had no legal value. NSW won!