Page 2197 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

THERE ARE OF COURSE CASES WHERE THE CROWN NEED NOT BE BOUND BY LEGISLATION. FOR EXAMPLE, IF A PIECE OF LEGISLATION INTRODUCES AN ADMINISTRATIVE SCHEME, SUCH AS A SYSTEM OF LICENCE FEES TO BE PAID BEFORE SOME KIND OF WORK CAN BE CARRIED OUT, THERE WILL GENERALLY NOT BE A NEED FOR THE CROWN TO PAY ITSELF A LICENCE FEE. THE CROWN SHOULD BE BOUND BY THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF SUCH LEGISLATION BUT THERE IS LITTLE POINT IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES IN MAKING THE CROWN PAY ITSELF FOR A LICENCE - ALL THAT WOULD USUALLY BE ACHIEVED WOULD BE A LOT OF PAPER SHUFFLING.

IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL NONSENSE FOR THE CROWN TO PROSECUTE THE

CROWN. THAT BEING SO, IF AN AGENT ACTS WITH LAWFUL

AUTHORITY AS EXPRESSED BY STATUTE OR STATUTORY INSTRUMENT,

THEN CRRVIINAL LIABILITY SHOULD NOT ATTACH TO THE PERSON

FOR ACTING IN THAT WAY. THIS DOES NOT GIVE AN AGENT OF THE

CROWN A GENERAL IMMUNPTY FROM PROSECUTION FOR BREACHING

THE LAW. IT IS PRESUMED THAT AGENTS WILL ABIDE BY THE LAWS

OF THE TERRITORY IN PERFORMING THEIR JOBS UNLESS THEY HAVE

SOME LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY NOT TO DO SO.

FOR EXAMPLE, AN OFFICER OF A.C.T.E.W. MAY HAVE LEGISLATIVE

AUTHORITY TO ENTER PRIVATE LAND TO CARRY OUT ELECTRICAL

WORK. WHILE THAT OFFICER IS WORKING WITHIN HIS OR HER

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, HE OR SHE WOULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR

TAMPERING WITH THE PROPERTY OF A.C.T.E.W.. IT FOLLOWS FROM

THIS THAT WHERE THE CROWN IS GRANTED IMMUNITY FROM

2197

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .