Executive Power – Nationhood and Prerogative. Executive Power – Nationhood and Prerogative. R v Sharkey (1949) 79 CLR 121
• Victoria v Commonwealth (AAP case) (1975) 134 CLR 338
* Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister For Immigration and Border Protection & Ors.
• Davis v Commonwealth (1988) 166 CLR 79
• Ruddock v Vadarlis (The Tampa case) (2001) 110 FCR 491.
• Pape v Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 238 CLR 1
• Williams v The Commonwealth (2012) 248 CLR 156 (Williams No 1)
• Williams v Commonwealth of Australia  HCA 23 (Williams No 2).
The cases mentioned above are to be used.
Pinpoint everything used as an argument. Don’t paraphrase. Only argue as the defendant. Particularly Q.2 as I will be mooting on that issue so it needs to be extra on point.
Use relevant sections from the Constitution and other legislations. Be very straight to the point. Need about 100-120 words for each question.
The format should be rule, authority, and application in each question.
Question 1 – Distinguish Pape, look at para 133 in Pape > looking at French CJ’s short terms nationhood power. Use the Mason CJ test in Davis case at para 34.
Question 2 and 3 are very similar. be careful not to have the same answer for both, similar maybe but not the same. Use Gummow and Bell JJ from Pape in Q3.
For question 4, use the Ruddock v Vadarlis in particularly Black CJ’s dissent. Use the cases mentioned only.
Use lecture notes for guide to answer questions.
- Among other benefits, we guarantee:
Essays written from scratch – 100% original,
Competitive prices and excellent quality,
24/7 customer support,
Priority on customer’s privacy,
Unlimited free revisions upon request, and
Plagiarism free work.
Providing Quality University Papers , written from scratch,
delivered on time, at affordable rates!