CASE NOTE ASSIGNMENT
Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245
Judges: Mason CJ, Brennan J, Deane J, Dawson J, Toohey J, Gaudron J, McHugh J
Plaintiff: Mr Harry Brandy
Defence: Mr John Bell, Mr. A R Castan AM, QC and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
Court: High Court of Australia
Date of Judgment: 23rd of February 1995
Student number: u3177954
I The Case
The Material Facts And Relevant Law In The Case:
John Bell made a complaint against Harry Brandy who was his colleague at the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Bell made a complaint to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission alleging verbal ill treatment and intimidating conduct by Brandy. HREOC found that Bell’s complaint was justified and
…show more content…
This was key in confirming the separation of powers and its importance within the Commonwealth.
Bibliography
Cases
1. Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245
2. Huddart Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330
3. Waterside Workers’ Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd (1918) 25 CLR 434
4. Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; 127 ALR 1
Articles
1. Matthew G. Cowman, Separation of judicial power: Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Deakin Law Review 119
2. Elizabeth Henderson, Trials, tribunals and tribulations: Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission [1995] Sydney Law Review Vol. 17, 587
3. Brandy V Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission (2017) Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandy_v_Human_Rights_and_Equal_Opportunity_Commission
Legislation
1. Racial Discrimination Act 1975
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
Vbansal. “The Effects of Dred Scott V. Sanford.” Associated Content. 06 August 2007. 26 May 2010.
BOWERS V. HARDWICK, 478 U. S. 186 :: Volume 478 :: 1986 :: Full Text." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. .
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
Rehnquist, William H., Brennan, William J. "A Casebook on the Law and Society: What Rights
U.S. Congress. Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981. p.7
No community in Canada comes into conflict with criminal justice system officials more disproportionately than Aboriginals (Dickson-Gilmore, 2011, p.77). Indeed, Aboriginal Canadians are often subject to both overt and unintended discrimination from Canadian law enforcement due in large part to institutionalized reputations as chronic substance abusers who are incapable of reform (Dickson-Gilmore, 2011, p.77-78). One of the more startling contemporary examples of this is the case of Frank Paul; a Mi’kmaq Canadian who was left to die in a Vancouver alley by officers of the Vancouver Police Department after being denied refuge in a police “drunk tank”. Not surprisingly, this event garnered significant controversy and public outcry amongst Canada’s Aboriginal population who have long been subject to over-policing and persistent overrepresentation as offenders in the Canadian criminal justice system (Jiwani & Dickson-Gilmore, 2011, p.43 & 81).
Herring J., ‘The Human Rights Act and the welfare principle in family law – conflicting or complementary?’ [1999] C.F.L.Q.11 (3), 223-235
Hobson, Charles F. The Great Chief Justice, John Marshall And the Rule Of Law. University Press Of Kansas: Wison Garey McWilliams & Lance Banning, 1996.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
pp. pp. pp Kay, H. H. (2004, Jan). Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Professor of Law.
Rackley, E (2010). In Conversation with Lord Justice Etherton: Revisiting the Case for a More Diverse Judiciary. Public Law
The Separation of Powers was important to our Founders because the mistreatment of the power that the colonists gave to their leader was evident. The colonists preferred to avoid a similar occurrence in their new country, where they felt that their leaders were violating their rights. In one of James Madison’s Federalist Papers, it states that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, judiciary, in the hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny…(L)iberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and
Contemporary Readings in Law & Social Justice, 5(2), 454-460.