Each of the questions below asks you to write a report that reflects on your understanding of and reading of a named judgment or judgments. The ‘Guiding Quotation’ are provided to prompt some thoughts about themes and approach you might want to take up. The quotes take up some of the issues and approach that you have encountered in the lecture and the tutorial discussions in weeks 1 to 6 inclusive.
““Juris-diction” concerns the speaking of law—by law and about law—in a place where legal speech is warranted. Generally speaking, courts, as places and institutions of law, exercise jurisdiction; as jurisdictions they constitute an authority of proper and lawful powers. Such authority is lawful and speaks the truth vis-a-vis those subject to jurisdiction; those subject to lawful authority fall within its jurisdiction. … One can learn from the way law speaks of its speaking. … One argues and reasons, one interprets and judges, in both language and law. One transgresses against law and against language. One creates with law and with language. Both language and law speak of their language and laws.” – Marianne Constable (2010) ‘Speaking the Language of Law: a jurisdictional primer” English Language Notes vol 48 no 2. The full text from which this quote is taken is included in your subject materials (SM).
Question 1:
Write a brief report that reflects on your understanding of the differences in style and content between the judgment of Cummins J in Victorian Supreme Court and the judgment by Winneke P in the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal in the Whiteside & Dieber case. Edited extracts of these two judgments are included in the subject materials for this subject and can be accessed online at Austlii. The Cummins J judgment can be accessed at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VSC/2000/260.html The Winneke P judgment can be accessed at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2000/142.html
Background to Question 1: The Dieber and Whiteside case is discussed in week 2 of the course. You will note that there are several judgments in the case, all of which are included in your essential reading. This question does not ask you to write a judgment report on all judgments in the case. Your Judgment Report should focus on the two judgments named in this question – the judgment by Winneke P and the judgment by Cummins J.
Question 2
Write a brief report which reflects on your reading of the language and contexts of the judgments of Gibbs CJ and Wilson J on the issue of standing in Onus v Alcoa [1981] HCA 50. The judgment of the High Court of Australia in Onus v Alcoa is available online on Austlii here http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1981/50.html
Background to Question 2: The Onus v Alcoa case is discussed in Week 5. It is concerned with judgments on standing in the context of administrative law. In the course of the judgment by Gibbs CJ, he comments (at [7]): “The position of a small community of aboriginal people of a particular group living in a particular area which that group has traditionally occupied, and which claims an interest in relics of their ancestors found in that area, is very different indeed from that of a diverse group of white Australians associated by come common opinion on a matter of social policy which might equally concern of any other Australian”. You may also want to note the references to the Australian War Memorial in the judgments. Note that there are several individual judgments in the High Court – you are not asked to address them all; your report should focus on the judgments of Gibbs CJ and Wilson J as stated in the question.
Question 3
Write a brief report which reflects on your reading of the language and context of the judgments in Plenty v Dillon [1991] HCA 5. The judgments of the High Court of Australia in Plenty v Dillon is available online on Austlii at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/5.html
Background to Question 3: The Plenty v Dillon case is discussed in Week 6 concerned with the system of writs and the writ of trespass. There are two judgments – one, the joint judgment by Mason CJ, Brennan and Toohey JJ; the second is the joint judgment of Gaudron and McHugh JJ. Both of these two joint judgments, you may want to note, return to and discuss the seminal common law decision of Semayne’s Case from 1572.
