🇦🇺Land Down Under🇦🇺

Forwarded from Tom Sewell

The application for High Court injunction has been dismissed.

The Chief Justice determined that the plaintiff doesn't need the protection. The decision relied heavily on a previous judgement of Castlemaine Tooheys vs South Australia, which implies that the validity of the legislation should be given the benefit of the doubt until the full hearing in September, and that the strength or weakness of our case is irrelevant to receiving the injunction.

The Chief Justice determined that the purpose of the injunction is not to give the applicants immunity from the law, the purpose of the injunction is to prevent irrevocable harm to the plaintiff. The Commonwealth asserted that there was no current prosecution against the plaintiff and therefore no permanent harm. When asked yesterday by the Chief Justice as to whether any prosecution had taken place.

The Commonwealth replied: "there is as yet no specific threat by the defendants (The Commonwealth) to take action against the plaintiffs (White Australia)".

The Chief Justice asked again: "no specific threat, or no intention?".

The Commonwealth replied: "no I cant put it like that, I don't have instructions to put it like that, one such step might be investigation into crimes".

The Chief Justice asked further: "There's been no prosecution commenced?".

The Commonwealth replied: "I am not aware of any prosecutions by offices who are not party to this proceeding" ... "the ideology and rhetoric of White Australia, is seen to inspire individuals for violence" ... "in the absence of real harm to the plaintiffs, other than the harm of the law, there's nothing that in refusing the injunction would harm the plaintiffs, however granting the injunction could bring harm".

The Chief Justice remained neutral today as to whether there was any real or perceived harm to the community by dismissing the injunction.

In summary, the Injunction was dismissed because there was insufficient evidence of irrevocable harm against the plaintiffs if the injunction was not to be granted. The communist party received the injunction from Justice Dixon because the commonwealth threatened to take possession of the Australian Communist parties property, and that no such threat had been made by the commonwealth against The White Australia Party.

The Commonwealth suggested that in the event that The White Australia Party was successful at the full hearing in September, that they could reconstitute without any harm and therefore any harm to the incorporation is reversable. The Justice does not outright express that the harm to the Party by the commonwealth would be "irrevocable and irreparable", and instead referred the The White Australia Party to a lower court, seeking injunction to Registrar of Incorporated Associations under s 135(1) of the Victorian Act.

The injunction was dismissed on the grounds in part because the Commonwealth has not currently threatened to prosecute Officers of the White Australia Party, nor has the Commonwealth threatened to take assets off the Party or its Officers - which distinguishes it from the Australian Communist Party injunction which was successful.

The commonwealth were unsuccessful in their application for costs.

The Chief Justice determined clearly in paragraph 25 of his decision that the Plaintiff could continue engaging legal advice for the purpose of prosecuting the Commonwealth on behalf of The White Australia Party.

"25 To be added for completeness is that there is no suggestion, on the part of
the plaintiffs or on the part of the defendants, that the practical operation of Pt 5.3B
is to prevent the Party or Mr Sewell from continuing to engage and instruct its legal
representatives to prosecute this proceeding to its conclusion.35"

I will seek legal advice as to whether this includes further fundraising for the purpose of engaging in legal representation.

The full hearing will commence mid September to determine the validity of the Hate Crimes Legislation and therefore the Constitutional right for the White Australia Party to exist and contest elections.

🤬9🤷‍♀3❤2🤨2👍1🖕1

1.11K views06:45