- Legal eagles in major legal battle
- By Ellen Whinnett
- The Herald Sun
- 07/12/2008 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: The Rooster ( 264 articles in 2008 )
ROB Hulls's promise that the Charter of Human Rights will not become a lawyers' picnic is in tatters.
This follows a major legal battle that has developed in the Victorian courts.
Taxpayers could pay more than $1 million on a test case in which a police officer is using the charter to gain access to details of an investigation into his affairs.
And as the four-year-old case reaches court, 13 lawyers are being paid to argue it.
The legal eagles carted 13 cases of documents into VCAT this week for the complex argument, which is a test case for the charter's powers in relation to Freedom of Information requests.
Attorney-General Mr Hulls has intervened to defend the charter, calling in top government lawyer Solicitor-General Pamela Tate and two other lawyers.
Victoria Police has four lawyers arguing for its documents to be kept secret, including a human rights specialist who works for the Victorian Government Solicitor's Office.
The Australian Taxation Office, which is involved in the Freedom of Information dispute, not the charter argument, has three lawyers.
The man at the centre of the case, a sergeant referred to only as XYZ, has three lawyers.
The case, running in VCAT before President Justice Kevin Bell, has referred to laws from Canada and the US and the constitution of India as part of the argument.
XYZ's financial dealings were investigated by Victoria Police's Ethical Standards Department in 2002.
He was never charged and is seeking hundreds of documents relating to the inquiry.
Victoria Police refused to release all of them, saying they might reveal confidential sources, information on investigative methodology and private information.
XYZ is seeking the release of the documents and is also arguing the Human Rights Charter should have been applied when consideration was given to the public interest component of his demand for documents.
It is an embarrassment for Mr Hulls, who said the charter would not be a legal minefield when it came into effect last year.
"People misconstrue the charter as nothing more than a legal document that could lead to a lawyers' picnic and the opposite is the case when you look at precedents in other countries," Mr Hulls said in January.
This week, his spokeswoman, Meaghan Shaw, said the case was about Freedom of Information.
"Of three days of hearing, only two hours have been spent on charter matters," Ms Shaw said.
"The Attorney-General has intervened . . . because a very narrow charter issue has been raised. The Attorney-General has a role to intervene in cases where the charter is raised."
This follows a major legal battle that has developed in the Victorian courts.
Taxpayers could pay more than $1 million on a test case in which a police officer is using the charter to gain access to details of an investigation into his affairs.
And as the four-year-old case reaches court, 13 lawyers are being paid to argue it.
The legal eagles carted 13 cases of documents into VCAT this week for the complex argument, which is a test case for the charter's powers in relation to Freedom of Information requests.
Attorney-General Mr Hulls has intervened to defend the charter, calling in top government lawyer Solicitor-General Pamela Tate and two other lawyers.
Victoria Police has four lawyers arguing for its documents to be kept secret, including a human rights specialist who works for the Victorian Government Solicitor's Office.
The Australian Taxation Office, which is involved in the Freedom of Information dispute, not the charter argument, has three lawyers.
The man at the centre of the case, a sergeant referred to only as XYZ, has three lawyers.
The case, running in VCAT before President Justice Kevin Bell, has referred to laws from Canada and the US and the constitution of India as part of the argument.
XYZ's financial dealings were investigated by Victoria Police's Ethical Standards Department in 2002.
He was never charged and is seeking hundreds of documents relating to the inquiry.
Victoria Police refused to release all of them, saying they might reveal confidential sources, information on investigative methodology and private information.
XYZ is seeking the release of the documents and is also arguing the Human Rights Charter should have been applied when consideration was given to the public interest component of his demand for documents.
It is an embarrassment for Mr Hulls, who said the charter would not be a legal minefield when it came into effect last year.
"People misconstrue the charter as nothing more than a legal document that could lead to a lawyers' picnic and the opposite is the case when you look at precedents in other countries," Mr Hulls said in January.
This week, his spokeswoman, Meaghan Shaw, said the case was about Freedom of Information.
"Of three days of hearing, only two hours have been spent on charter matters," Ms Shaw said.
"The Attorney-General has intervened . . . because a very narrow charter issue has been raised. The Attorney-General has a role to intervene in cases where the charter is raised."
Source: https://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24761459-662,00.html
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here