http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/01/adjournment/ Constitutionally-limited government, 1688-2006, RIP. Pass the bananas. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:40:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/01/adjournment/#comment-1018 Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:33:21 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/01/adjournment/#comment-1018 Mmmmm I suspect a Speaker centred remedy on this matter involving repayment. This ups the likelihood that the matter is privileged from the supervisory jurisdiction of the Courts. Watch for an amendment to the Attorney General’s statement of defence saying (post Speaker remedy) that the House clearly sees this as a matter of Privilege. In of itself this may make the Judge less likely to proceed to hear the case – and why would he or she enter into this hornets nest. He may also be unwilling to set a precedent – it might act as an informal check on Parliament if the privilege issue isn’t clearly resolved either way. That way Parliament will be cautious in the future over what it does with its resourcing. At a stretch he could hold that the matter is now hypothetical. Clearly the Attorney General has already got across the first hurdle in persuading the High Court that they actions of the Speaker are relevant to the hearing of the case. Mmmmm I suspect a Speaker centred remedy on this matter involving repayment. This ups the likelihood that the matter is privileged from the supervisory jurisdiction of the Courts. Watch for an amendment to the Attorney General’s statement of defence saying (post Speaker remedy) that the House clearly sees this as a matter of Privilege. In of itself this may make the Judge less likely to proceed to hear the case – and why would he or she enter into this hornets nest. He may also be unwilling to set a precedent – it might act as an informal check on Parliament if the privilege issue isn’t clearly resolved either way. That way Parliament will be cautious in the future over what it does with its resourcing. At a stretch he could hold that the matter is now hypothetical. Clearly the Attorney General has already got across the first hurdle in persuading the High Court that they actions of the Speaker are relevant to the hearing of the case.

]]> http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/01/adjournment/#comment-1017 Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:11:01 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/01/adjournment/#comment-1017 What do the sitting dates of Parliament have to do with scheduling of a court case? What do the sitting dates of Parliament have to do with scheduling of a court case?

]]> http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/01/adjournment/#comment-1006 Sun, 01 Oct 2006 11:48:42 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/01/adjournment/#comment-1006 At the rate of delay, it sems not likely that the trial will commence in November as Parliament will recess for Christmas New Year. It looks likely that trial would commence in early Feb 07. At the rate of delay, it sems not likely that the trial will commence in November as Parliament will recess for Christmas New Year. It looks likely that trial would commence in early Feb 07.

]]> http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/01/adjournment/#comment-1004 Sun, 01 Oct 2006 09:51:22 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/01/adjournment/#comment-1004 I suspect that they're trying to delay things long enough for legislation to cover themselves on this one. Keep hacking away at them. I suspect that they’re trying to delay things long enough for legislation to cover themselves on this one. Keep hacking away at them.

]]>