22-APR-1991 17:42
CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS BR
852 840 1976
P.18
37
Mr. Keane submits that if contrary
to his submission the doctrine does exist, then it only prevents collateral challenge, put
sut not a direct challengey such as go he says, is xaisen nere. By collateral challenge he weañó, for example, that if a
that if a person were to be cross-examinéu about a previous conviction it would not be possible for them to argue that they haw not been so convicted due to any invalidity in the appointment of the tribunal wefore
He would seek to whom they were in fact convicted. classify Aldridge as a collateral attack because he hau ween sentenced, and the time for appealiny hau expireu, and it was thus too late to raise the issue.
Dr. Rubenstein deals with the question of collateral challenge at paye 203 where ne says;
been
We
facto
"The rule 18 chat acts Of officers cannot De collsterally impeacneu, but collateral proceedings have in this context a particularly wide Meaniny: every proceeuing which does not seek To remove the judge, including any
j.£5 deemed to attack upon the decision, be collateral.
•
**
as
Mr. Keane also submitreu thật as this point hac
in 1989 which raised by Dr. Clark in nis article itself hau yaineu coverage in the press, the invalidity of the appointment hau been made apparens and that therefore, from that time, kr. Line's appointment lacked any colourasle authority He went further to submit that Mr. Line, апа Inaøeu everybouy else, should have known that the Governor could not, or had not delegated nis Article XIV powers, there never was any colour to his appointment. I reject this submission as being wholly unrealistic. any event I have concluded that the powers were deleyable amé nobody knew about the 1974 purported delegation or its effect in law.
•
In
It seems to me that tnere are two crucial pointe on tile facts of this case. Firstly, the Applicants have not yet been committed for trial, anu will have
tne magistrate regular appearances before has ruled against them on the stay application, functus officio in any
way, and in normal may well have
matters to consider, other there is sufficient evidence upon whion either one of them
trial.
сап
to make Even though ne
he is not circumstances such as whether
to
stop
for committeu the Applicants renewing
of the
procaguings
if
new
Further. their
were MattezS
to
arise
there is nothing application for a
if
Stuf
pernapa
the delay apout which they originally complainêu
ET'd 0499 698 298
6 ט כ
V£:21 22-PQ-TEST
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.