Must know case studies

[nacho]

Hi,
just wondering, would anyone have compiled a list of all the case studies we need to know? I seem to have little memory most of them (unit 3...:/)
Surely there aren't more than 10, right?

Off the top of my head i can only think of:

-High court interpretation:
Tasmania Dam Case
Deing vs Tarola ? Or was that just statutory interpretation?

-

[RobDog]

- High Court Interpretation: - change in powers
-->Tasmania Dams Case
-->Brislan's Case

- High Court Interpretation: - protection of rights
-->Roach Case

- Referendum:
-->1967 Aboriginal Referendum

Im pretty sure these are all the topics we need to cover, and those are the cases im choosing.

[nacho]

Do we need to know a failed referendum too?

[eeps]

Do we need to know a failed referendum too?

No.

[MJRomeo81]

The implied right to political communication is an easy one to remember.

[Wazzup]

Changing words of the constitution
1967 Referendum - To remove the prohibition against counting Aboriginal people in population counts

Division of Powers
Tasmanian Dams Case 1992
R v Brislain case

Protection of Rights
Theophanous case
Australian Capital Television vs Commonwealth 1992

Correct me please if anything is wrong

[Zafaraaaa]

High Court Interpretation of the Constitution which changed division of law making powers:
-> Commonwealth v. State of Tasmania (Tasmanian Dam's case)
-> Brislan's case

Structural protection and how it protects rights:
-> Roach v. Electoral Commissioner (2007)

Implied rights (freedom of political communication)
-> Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Successful referendum case:
-> Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) Act 1967
-> High court judges retiring at 70
Failed referendum: (might be good to use in examples)
-> Simultaneous debates 1977
-> Australia becoming a republic 1999

Statutory Interpretation:
-> Deing v. Tarola (studded belt case; interpretation of the term "regulated weapon")
-> Davies v Waldron (interpretation of the term "start to drive")

Relationship b/w court and parliament (Parliament's sovereignty to override the court made law)
-> Trigwell case (when Parliament ignored the common law principle that stock holders weren't liable for damage caused by their stock, and instead they created a statute "Wrong (Animals straying on Highways) Act 1984 to say that stockholders WERE responsible
Relationship b/w court and parliament (Parliament incoorporating bodies of common law into Acts of Parliament-CODIFICATION)
-> When they took out the common law principle from the 'Mabo v. State of Queensland' case and implemented it in the 'Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth.)

[damo707]

Tasmanian Dams Case 1992

Correct me please if anything is wrong

Tasmanian Dams case 1983*

[oscar]

Tasmanian Dams is a big case used it last year.

[damo707]

In terms of "must know"; in bold are specific dot points on the study design, with relevant case studies that I use beneath. I.e. You must know a case study (not necessarily the ones listed) for these areas. However, knowing the other case studies discussed on this thread would definitely add to the quality of answers.

The significance of two High Court cases involving the interpretation of the Commonwealth Constitution in terms of their impact on the law making power of the State and Commonwealth Parliaments (Unit 3 - AOS 2) - Note you must know two High Court cases which impacted the balance of law making powers (although you'd probs get away with one since I doubt they'd actually ask about both)
- Tasmanian Dams 1983
- Roads case 1926

The significance of one High Court case relating to the constitutional protection of rights in Australia (Unit 3 - AOS 2) Again you must know one according to the study design
- Australian Capital Television v. The Commonwealth (1992) - The implied right of political communication

Hope this helps.

[RobDog]

Also
The way in which one successful referendum changed the division of law-making powers
1967 Aboriginal Referendum

[damo707]

1967 Aboriginal Referendum

Oh yeah, lol. Forgot about that. <Insert racist joke>

[RobDog]

rofl at insert racist joke

[smithy16]

So could you use the High Court case regarding the right to political communication as your case for the protection of rights?