Human Rights Act 2004

Last updated

Human Rights Act 2004 (A.C.T)
Coat of Arms of the Australian Capital Territory.svg
Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly
Citation Human Rights Act 2004 (A.C.T)
Territorial extent Australian Capital Territory
Enacted by Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly
Enacted1 July 2004
Amends
Rights Amendment Act 2008 (NO.3 OF 2008)
Status: In force

The Human Rights Act 2004 is an Act of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly that recognises the fundamental human rights of individuals. Ratified by the Australia Capital Territory (ACT) Legislative Assembly on the 1 July 2004, it was the among first of its kind to define and enshrine human rights into Australian law by establishing civil, political, economic, social and culture rights. [1] The unprecedented legislation followed the proposal extended by ACT Bill of Rights Consultative Committee. [2] This proposal embodied a community wide deliberation, designed to assess public sentiment toward Human Rights within the ACT. [3] Consequently, this dialog would go on to highlight the popularity of an ACT Charter of Human Rights among the populace. [4]

Contents

While this piece of legislation established newly held human rights, the act itself does not inhibit already established rights and freedoms . [5] The act explicitly outlines within section 7, "Rights apart from act", that rights established within the document are not exhaustive. [6] Additionally, this legislation draws distinct limitations, exclaiming that the Human Rights outlined, are accountable to "reasonable limits" enacted by law, such that, they are "demonstrably justified" throughout civilisation. [7]

Additionally, the Act established an Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Commissioner while also empowering the ACT Supreme Court to facilitate compliance of legislation. [8]

Sections of the Human Rights Act 2004

(The full text of the Act is available online.)

This section outlines the significant segments of the Human Rights Act 2004 that grant Australian rights within the A.C.T. This will include Part 2 - Human Rights, Part - 3 Civil and Political Rights, and Part - 3A Economic, Social and Culture Rights. Part 1- Preliminary is not included in the following summary because it does not contribute to the establishment of Human Rights in the A.C.T.

Part 2 – Human Rights: What are human rights ?

The 2004 Act establishes human rights by connecting civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. [9]

Part 2 – Human Rights: Who has human rights?

The Human Rights Act maintains only individuals can possess human rights. [10]

Part 3 – Civil and political Rights: Recognition and equality before the law

The Human Rights Act solidifies recognition and equality before the law through three pillars. Firstly, the Act enshrines the right of the individual to be recognised before the law as a person. [11] Secondly, every individual retains the right, detached from prejudice or difference, to enjoy their Human Rights. [12] To conclude, all individuals are warranted an equitable defence before the law and individuals shall be treated as equals before the law, without prejudice. [13]

Part 3 – Civil and political Rights: Right to life

This title sets out the individual's ‘’right to life’’; it states ‘’no-one may be arbitrarily deprived of life’’. [14]

Part 3 – Civil and political Rights: Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading way

The following section prohibits torture of individuals, medical or scientific experimentation in the absence of freely obtain permission from the individual and the punishment and/or treatment of an individual in a ‘’cruel, inhuman, or degrading’’ manner. [15]

Part 3 – Civil and political Rights: Protection of the family and children

The Human Rights Act upholds the protection of family and children by establishing two focal points. Firstly, the Act maintains that family should be afforded protection within the community because it's the ‘’natural and basic group unit of society’’. [16] Secondly, all children maintain the right to safety, unaccompanied by differentiation or prejudice. [17]

Part 3 – Civil and political Rights: Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief

Section 14 supports an individual's right to freedom of ‘’thought, conscience and religion’’ by outlining two subsections. [18] Firstly, the right to arrogate a religion or faith of ones choosing. [19] What's more, the ability to express religion or faith by ‘’worship, observance, practice and teaching’’ is instilled. [20] This definition extends publicly or privately on an individual or collective basis. Secondly, no individual can be pressurised into narrowing their freedom to maintain or express their faith through ‘’worship, observance, practice or teaching’’. [21]

Part 3 – Civil and political Rights: Freedom of expression

This title facilitates the right to express oneself irrespective of boarders, media, art, or action. [22] Additionally, the individual's right to an opinion in the absence of intercession is outlined. [23]

Part 3 – Civil and political Rights: Retrospective criminal laws

This section mandates that no individual can be found guilty of transgression, if such a transgression was not enshrined as an offence in law when undertaken. [24] Additionally, harsher punishment cannot be appointed retrospectively. That is, criminal offences cannot exact punitive retribution greater than the damages that would be awarded at the time of the offence. [25]

Part 3 – Children in the Criminal Process

There are four pillars to children in the criminal process. Firstly, incriminated persons should be segregated from all implicated children. [26] Secondly, the handling of the child must be congruent to a non-implicated child of the similar age. [27] Thirdly, a trial must be produced in timely fashion. [28] To concluded, should a child be convicted, the behaviour toward this child must be conducted analogously to a non-implicated child of similar age. [29]

Part 3A – Economic, social and Culture Rights: Right to an education

The following section details the three core components of the right to education. Firstly, all children will have access to a suitable education based on the needs of the child for free. [30] Secondly, vocational, continuing training, and further education are the right of all Australians. [31] Thirdly, the previously described rights are subject to actualisation without discrimination and compliance with a parent or guardians religious and/or moral obligations, so long as, these convictions adhere to the minimal standards enacted by law. [32]

Case Law

The Human Rights Act of 2004 has provided the basis for numerous judicial rulings within the Australian court system. The following section outlines courts cases where the Human Rights Act of 2004 influenced judicial rulings.

Imran Hakimi v Legal Aid Commission (A.C.T)

The ACT Law Courts building housing the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. ACTSupremeCourt.JPG
The ACT Law Courts building housing the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

Hakimi sought Romano's representation in a criminal defence matter. Hakimi did not possess the necessary resources required for his defence. [33] As such, Hakimi applied for legal aid and it was granted, however, in place of monetary assistance, the Legal Aid Commission (A.C.T) approved the services of a lawyer. [34] Mr. Hakimi found this disagreeable, he wanted to obtain the services of Mr. Romano. [35] Consequently, Romano argued that the Human Rights Act of 2004 granted Hakimi the power to contract his services and the that Legal Aid Commission (A.C.T) was solely responsible for the remuneration of those services under the Human Right Act 2004 section 22. [36]

Accordingly, the Legal Aid Commission (A.C.T) claimed, that Romano's interpretation of section 22 was not the intention of the provision and that there were reasonable limitations on this provision. [37]

In conclusion, Justice Refshauge of the Supreme Court found that "common sense and international jurisprudence" dictated the Human Rights Act does not pronounce an unconditional right to be represented by a lawyer of the accused's choosing, citing R v Williams 2006. [38] As a result, Mr Hakimi's application was unsuccessful. [39]

R v Kalachoff

Kalachoff was facing trail for the offence of "recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm". [40] For this trial, Kalachoff applied to the Legal Aid Commission (A.C.T) in order to acquire remuneration for the presiding counsel. [41]

In response, the Legal Aid Office (A.C.T) refused to provide the required funding. [42] As such, Kalachoff's presiding counsel argued that under the Human Rights Act 2004, Kalachoff's right to a fair trial had been violated. [43]

Justice Burns of the Supreme Court found this argument to be "misguided". [44] Justice Burns pointed out, that the Human Rights Act grants individual legal assistance before the law and should justice depend upon it, this assistance will be appointed at no cost. [45] In making these points Justice Burns explained, that these rights should not be conflated into a compelled "hybrid guarantee" of funding for a defendant's chosen legal defence. [46] The Justice maintains, that such a position violates the Legal Aid Act 1977 (A.C.T). [47] This resulted in the rejection of Kalachoff's appeal. [48]

Dennis Michael Nova V The Queen (2012)

The case of Dennis Michael Nova v The Queen (2012) was heard in the Supreme Court by Justice Richard Refshauge who evaluated the halt in legal proceedings pertaining to Nova's charges being brought to trial. [49] The decision of the court utilised common law and the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) to reach a verdict. [50]

With respect to common law, Justice Refshauge acknowledged the "appalling delay" in the proceedings, however, the Justice was unconvinced Nova would experience prejudice relating to matters of fair trial. [51] Additionally, Justice Refshauge pointed out the delay was not the result of "inaction on the part of authorities". [52] As such, Justice Refshauge remained dissatisfied with the idea that the defendant's trial would be tainted by prejudice. [53]

In addressing common law, Justice Refshauge moved to examine the parameters under the Human Rights Act 2004. [54] The court investigated the basis for a stay under section 22 – Rights in Criminal Proceedings. [55] Section 22 outlines that an individual "charged with a criminal offence" holds the right to a trail unencumbered by excessive postponement. [56] Justice Refshauge explained that a delay in proceedings does not itself constituted a violation of the Act. [57] Nonetheless, given the three year and four-month delay in bringing this matter to trail, Justice Refshauge concluded that the defendant's rights were violated, citing section 22 of Human Rights Act. [58] In Justice Refshauge's ruling, this breach was acknowledged on the record. [59]

Criticisms and Approbation

The Human Rights Act of 2004 was at the forefront of establishing Human Rights in Australia. Being the first of its kind, the Act's efficacy and scope are debated by legal scholars. This section outlines criticism and approbation of Act.

Jon Stanhope who served on council for A.C.T civil liberties as the president points out, that the Human Rights Act is ‘’one of the most important pieces of legislation’’ passed in Australia. [60] Nevertheless, Stanhope acknowledges that ‘’the act is not an end in itself’’ but will be used to encourage norms and customs that respect Human Rights. [61]

Congruent with the former, Helen Watchirs [62] the president of the A.C.T Human Right Commission and Gabrielle McKinnon a director on the Australian National University research project into Human Rights Act [63] levy heavy criticism. Watchirs and McKinnon describe the moderate influence of the Human Rights Act within the judicial system. The duo comment, that a ‘’great many cases’’ have been adjudicated without careful analysis and scrutiny of raised provisions pertaining to the Human Rights Act. [64]

Conversely, Michael Walton a senior lecture of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy school stated, [65] that this piece of legislation provides an honest accounting of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [66] Notwithstanding, Walton takes issue with specific sections of the Act. For example, when an individual's rights have been violated, under this act, there is no path to remuneration through litigation. [67]

Additionally, George Williams a Scientia Professor at the University of New South Wales [68] and Lara Kostakidis-Lianos a member of the University of New South Wales law journal [69] wrote about the connection between the Human Rights Act and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [70] The pair comment that the Act's biggest advantage is the board spectrum of knowledge available. [71] By utilising this knowledge to iteratively refine itself, this legislation may be Australia's greatest tool to protect rights and responsibilities despite concerns of opaque terminology. [72]

Jim McGinty a retired Attorney-General of Western Australia continues by describing the legislation as ‘’ground-breaking’’ and providing an ‘’express list’’ of civil and political protections. [73] McGinty comments, that unlike previous protections, the Human Rights Act establishes a connection between the individual and the government; without this partnership, the rights enshrined in the Act may become brittle, similar to analogous protections afforded within other legislative accounts. [74]

Amendments: Humans Rights Amendment Act 2008

(The full text of the Act is available online.)

The Human Rights Amendment Act 2008 clarified various areas of confusion in Human Rights Act of 2004. Enshrined by the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, the following amendments came into effect on 4 March 2008. [75]

Interpretation of law and human rights

This section sought to elucidate the interpretation of Territory law. Dictating that when congruous to a legislations’ aim, interpretation must be consistent with Human Rights (Austlii, 2008). [76]

Notice to Attorney-General and Commission

The following amendment specifies who the Supreme Court should communicate with, in the event, a case is heard that relates to an individual exercising a Human Right. [77] It is made explicit, that both the Attorney-General and the Human Rights Commissioner should be notified. [78]

See also

Related Research Articles

Champerty and maintenance are doctrines in common law jurisdictions that aim to preclude frivolous litigation:

Legal aid is the provision of assistance to people who are unable to afford legal representation and access to the court system. Legal aid is regarded as central in providing access to justice by ensuring equality before the law, the right to counsel and the right to a fair trial. This article describes the development of legal aid and its principles, primarily as known in Europe, the Commonwealth of Nations and in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian Human Rights Commission</span> Human rights institution of the Australian Government

The Australian Human Rights Commission is the national human rights institution of Australia, established in 1986 as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and renamed in 2008. It is a statutory body funded by, but operating independently of, the Australian Government. It is responsible for investigating alleged infringements of Australia's anti-discrimination legislation in relation to federal agencies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)</span> 1967 constitutional referendum on the legal status of Indigenous Australians

The second question of the 1967 Australian referendum of 27 May 1967, called by the Holt government, related to Indigenous Australians. Voters were asked whether to give the Federal Government the power to make special laws for Indigenous Australians in states, and whether in population counts for constitutional purposes to include all Indigenous Australians. The term "the Aboriginal Race" was used in the question.

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) (1987–1991), also known as the Muirhead Commission, was a Royal Commission appointed by the Australian Government in October 1987 to Federal Court judge James Henry Muirhead , to study and report upon the underlying social, cultural and legal issues behind the deaths in custody of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, in the light of the high level of such deaths in the 1980s.

<i>Dietrich v The Queen</i> 1992 Australian High Court legal aid case

Dietrich v The Queen is a 1992 High Court of Australia constitutional case which established a person accused of serious criminal charges must be granted an adjournment until appropriate legal representation is provided if they are unrepresented through no fault of their own and proceeding would result in the trial being unfair.

George Newhouse is an Australian human rights lawyer and a former local councillor. He is the principal solicitor of the National Justice Project, a human rights and social justice legal service, and currently an Adjunct Professor of Law at Macquarie University. and at the University of Technology Sydney.

Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between claim rights and liberty rights. A claim right is a right which entails responsibilities, duties, or obligations on other parties regarding the right-holder. In contrast, a liberty right is a right which does not entail obligations on other parties, but rather only freedom or permission for the right-holder. The distinction between these two senses of "rights" originates in American jurist Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's analysis thereof in his seminal work Fundamental Legal Conceptions, As Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays (1919).

Maguire v SOCOG 1999 was a decision of the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which ruled on 18 October 1999 that a blind man had been directly discriminated against by the failure of a government agency to provide ticketing materials for the Sydney Olympic Games in braille.

Maguire v SOCOG 2000 was a legal case in Australia about making a website accessible to a visually impaired person.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human trafficking in Australia</span>

Human trafficking in Australia is illegal under Divisions 270 and 271 of the Criminal Code (Cth). In September 2005, Australia ratified the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, which supplemented the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Amendments to the Criminal Code were made in 2005 to implement the Protocol.

Victims' rights are legal rights afforded to victims of crime. These may include the right to restitution, the right to a victims' advocate, the right not to be excluded from criminal justice proceedings, and the right to speak at criminal justice proceedings.

Law in Australia with regard to children is often based on what is considered to be in the best interest of the child. The traditional and often used assumption is that children need both a mother and a father, which plays an important role in divorce and custodial proceedings, and has carried over into adoption and fertility procedures. As of April 2018 all Australian states and territories allow adoption by same-sex couples.

Revenge porn is the distribution of sexually explicit images or videos of individuals without their consent. The material may have been made by a partner in an intimate relationship with the knowledge and consent of the subject at the time, or it may have been made without their knowledge. The subject may have experienced sexual violence during the recording of the material, in some cases facilitated by narcotics such as “date rape” drugs which also cause a reduced sense of pain and involvement in the sexual act, dissociative effects and amnesia. The possession of the material may be used by the perpetrators to blackmail the subjects into performing other sexual acts, to coerce them into continuing a relationship or to punish them for ending one, to silence them, to damage their reputation, and/or for financial gain. In the wake of civil lawsuits and the increasing numbers of reported incidents, legislation has been passed in a number of countries and jurisdictions to outlaw the practice, though approaches have varied and been changed over the years. The practice has also been described as a form of psychological abuse and domestic violence, as well as a form of sexual abuse.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Tasmania</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the Australian state of Tasmania have the same legal rights as non-LGBT residents. Tasmania has a transformative history with respect to the rights of LGBT people. Initially dubbed "Bigots Island" by international media due to intense social and political hostility to LGBT rights up until the late 1990s, the state has subsequently been recognised for LGBT law reforms that have been described by activists such as Rodney Croome as among the most extensive and noteworthy in the world. Tasmania imposed the harshest penalties in the Western world for homosexual activity until 1997, when it was the last Australian jurisdiction to decriminalise homosexuality after a United Nations Human Rights Committee ruling, the passage of federal sexual privacy legislation and a High Court challenge to the state's anti-homosexuality laws. Following decriminalisation, social and political attitudes in the state rapidly shifted in favour of LGBT rights ahead of national trends with strong anti-LGBT discrimination laws passed in 1999, and the first state relationship registration scheme to include same-sex couples introduced in 2003. In 2019, Tasmania passed and implemented the world's most progressive gender-optional birth certificate laws.

The Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) (“the Act”) is a piece of privacy legislation enacted by the Parliament of New South Wales the most populous state in Australia. It replaced the Listening Devices Act 1984 (NSW). The Act makes it an offence to record private conversations apart from in specific and defined circumstances. It makes provision for law enforcement officers to apply for warrants authorising the use of such devices and the circumstances in which judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales might issue such warrants.

Access to justice is a basic principle in rule of law which describes how citizens should have equal access to the legal systems in their context. Without access to justice, people are not able to fully exercise their rights, challenge discrimination, or hold decision-makers accountable for their actions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intersex rights in New Zealand</span> Overview of intersex peoples rights in New Zealand

Intersex rights in New Zealand are protections and rights afforded to intersex people. Protection from discrimination is implied by the Human Rights Act and the Bill of Rights Act, but remains untested. The New Zealand Human Rights Commission states that there has seemingly been a "lack of political will to address issues involved in current practices of genital normalisation on intersex children".

Maria Foscarinis is the founder of the National Homelessness Law Center, a not-for-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., United States, and dedicated to using the power of the law to end homelessness in America. From its founding in June 1989 to March 2021, Foscarinis served as Executive Director of the organization, which is She is a primary architect of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, now known as the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act, the first major federal legislation addressing homelessness.

The Principle of Legality is an important legal doctrine in Australian public law.

References

  1. ↑ Lynch, Andrew. "The ACT Human Rights Act". UNSW Sydney Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law. University of New South Wales. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  2. ↑ Lynch, Andrew. "The ACT Human Rights Act". UNSW Sydney Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law. University of New South Wales. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  3. ↑ Lynch, Andrew. "The ACT Human Rights Act". UNSW Sydney Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law. University of New South Wales. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  4. ↑ Lynch, Andrew. "The ACT Human Rights Act". UNSW Sydney Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law. University of New South Wales. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  5. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  6. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  7. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  8. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  9. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  10. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  11. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  12. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  13. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  14. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  15. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  16. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  17. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  18. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  19. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  20. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  21. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  22. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  23. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  24. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  25. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  26. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  27. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  28. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  29. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  30. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  31. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  32. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  33. ↑ "IMRAN HAKIMI v LEGAL AID COMMISSION (ACT); THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (INTERVENER) [2009] ACTSC 48 (12 May 2009)". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  34. ↑ "IMRAN HAKIMI v LEGAL AID COMMISSION (ACT); THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (INTERVENER) [2009] ACTSC 48 (12 May 2009)". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  35. ↑ "IMRAN HAKIMI v LEGAL AID COMMISSION (ACT); THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (INTERVENER) [2009] ACTSC 48 (12 May 2009)". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  36. ↑ "IMRAN HAKIMI v LEGAL AID COMMISSION (ACT); THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (INTERVENER) [2009] ACTSC 48 (12 May 2009)". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  37. ↑ "Imran Hakimi V Legal Aid Commission (Act); The Australian Capital Territory (Intervener) [2009] ACTSC 48 (12 May 2009)". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  38. ↑ "IMRAN HAKIMI v LEGAL AID COMMISSION (ACT); THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (INTERVENER) [2009] ACTSC 48 (12 May 2009)". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  39. ↑ "IMRAN HAKIMI v LEGAL AID COMMISSION (ACT); THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (INTERVENER) [2009] ACTSC 48 (12 May 2009)". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  40. ↑ "R v Kalachoff (No 3)". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  41. ↑ "R v Kalachoff (No 3)". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  42. ↑ "R v Kalachoff (No 3)". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  43. ↑ "R v Kalachoff (No 3)". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  44. ↑ "R v Kalachoff (No 3)". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  45. ↑ "R v Kalachoff (No 3)". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  46. ↑ "R v Kalachoff (No 3)". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  47. ↑ "R v Kalachoff (No 3)". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  48. ↑ "R v Kalachoff (No 3)". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  49. ↑ "DENNIS MICHAEL NONA v THE QUEEN". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  50. ↑ "DENNIS MICHAEL NONA v THE QUEEN". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  51. ↑ "DENNIS MICHAEL NONA v THE QUEEN". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  52. ↑ "DENNIS MICHAEL NONA v THE QUEEN". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  53. ↑ "DENNIS MICHAEL NONA v THE QUEEN". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  54. ↑ "DENNIS MICHAEL NONA v THE QUEEN". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  55. ↑ "DENNIS MICHAEL NONA v THE QUEEN". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  56. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2004". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  57. ↑ "DENNIS MICHAEL NONA v THE QUEEN". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  58. ↑ "DENNIS MICHAEL NONA v THE QUEEN". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  59. ↑ "DENNIS MICHAEL NONA v THE QUEEN". Jade.io. Jade. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  60. ↑ Stanhope, Jon (2005). "The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) Making a stand in the ACT". Alternative Law Journal. 2 (30): 54–57. doi:10.1177/1037969X0503000201. S2CID   149406189.
  61. ↑ Stanhope, Jon (2005). "The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) Making a stand in the ACT". Alternative Law Journal. 2 (30): 54–57. doi:10.1177/1037969X0503000201. S2CID   149406189.
  62. ↑ Watchirs, Helen. "Dr Watchirs Biography". hrc. ACT Human Rights Commission. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  63. ↑ "ACT Human Rights Act research project". acthra. Australian National University. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  64. ↑ Wachirs & McKinnon, Helen & Gabrielle (2010). "Five Years' Experience of The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT): Insights for Human Right Protection in Australia". UNSW Law Journal. 1 (33): 136–170.
  65. ↑ "Michael Walton". epod. Harvard Kennedy School Evidence for Policy Design. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
  66. ↑ Walton, Michael. (2004). "What's been left out of Australia's first bill of rights?". Alternative Law Journal. 4 (29): 195–196. doi:10.1177/1037969X0402900408. S2CID   148743175.
  67. ↑ Walton, Michael. (2004). "What's been left out of Australia's first bill of rights?". Alternative Law Journal. 4 (29): 195–196. doi:10.1177/1037969X0402900408. S2CID   148743175.
  68. ↑ "Scientia Professor George Williams". law.unsw. University of New South Wales. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
  69. ↑ "Lara Kostakidis-Lianos". unswlawjournal/Member. University of New South Wales Law Journal. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
  70. ↑ Kostakidis-Lianos, Lara; Williams, George (2005). "Bills of Responsibilities". Alternative Law Journal. 30 (2): 58–62. doi:10.1177/1037969X0503000202. S2CID   147116156.
  71. ↑ Kostakidis-Lianos, Lara; Williams, George (2005). "Bills of Responsibilities". Alternative Law Journal. 30 (2): 58–62. doi:10.1177/1037969X0503000202. S2CID   147116156.
  72. ↑ Kostakidis-Lianos, Lara; Williams, George (2005). "Bills of Responsibilities". Alternative Law Journal. 30 (2): 58–62. doi:10.1177/1037969X0503000202. S2CID   147116156.
  73. ↑ McGinty, Jim (2010). "A Human Rights Act for Australia". Australia Law Review. 12: 1–32.
  74. ↑ McGinty, Jim (2010). "A Human Rights Act for Australia". Australia Law Review. 12: 1–32.
  75. ↑ Lynch, Andrew. "The ACT Human Rights Act". UNSW Sydney Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law. University of New South Wales. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  76. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT 2008 (NO. 3 OF 2008)". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  77. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT 2008 (NO. 3 OF 2008)". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  78. ↑ "HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT 2008 (NO. 3 OF 2008)". Australasian Legal Information Institute. austlii. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.