The federal judiciary has a long and storied history of deference, and has been the focus of many commentators’ attention in recent months.
On Wednesday, a federal court judge will hear arguments in a case that will set the legal precedent for the future of deferential judicial deference.
The case is brought by the Queensland Court of Appeal and is also one of many concerning the state’s judicial independence and the scope of its role in the legal system.
The case will be heard on April 19, but it is not the first time the court has dealt with the issue of deferentially deferential decision-making.
The Supreme Court of Queensland is currently examining whether the Queensland government is deferential to the Supreme Council of Australian Governments (SCAG) in its review of the ACT’s laws.
In January, the court upheld the SCAG’s decision to impose the ACT government’s draconian and disproportionate detention regime on asylum seekers who are seeking to enter Australia by boat.
A majority of the Supreme Courts of Australia has since upheld SCAG decisions.
On Wednesday the court will hear from a lawyer representing the government of Queensland, which is arguing that the state has no authority to impose its own laws and decisions.
What do the legal precedents say?
The SCAG decision is important for two reasons.
The first is that it sets the legal standard for deferential decisions by judges.
Judges in other states have also used deferential deference in court, but the Supreme Privy Council of Australia, the organisation that decides the legality of judicial decisions, has never made a formal submission to the SCG.
As the SCA’s chief counsel, Dr Michael Poulter, said at a recent seminar, “there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question of whether a deferential judge has the ability to deference.”
The other reason the SCSAG decision has significance is that if it is accepted, it would be a precedent for other states to seek to replicate it.
“There is no reason why we can’t do it for other jurisdictions,” Dr Poulters said.
“It would allow them to do what the SCSCAG has done in Queensland.”
There are certainly cases where there are precedents that are just too strong to ignore.
The SCA has already begun the process of preparing a submission to that effect, and Dr Poulster said the state was already preparing a response to the case. “
It would also have a substantial impact on the SCSA,” he said.
The SCA has already begun the process of preparing a submission to that effect, and Dr Poulster said the state was already preparing a response to the case.
Dr Peter Jackson, an expert on legal theory and ethics at Griffith University, said the case would also be a significant test of the role of the state courts in deciding how to interpret the constitution and laws.
“This case is really a test of how far we can go in redefining what the state court is to do, particularly in terms of deferences to state legislatures,” he told The Guardian.
“If they can show that there’s no deference at all, that’s a very strong argument in favour of the right of the states to decide what their constitution and their laws are.”
Who are the SCs?
“The SCSA” is the state of Queensland’s judiciary, and its current president, Justice John Day, has served as president since 2009.
“The Supreme Council” is a group of about 20 judges appointed by the state governments of Queensland and the ACT to ensure that laws and policies are consistent with the constitution, the laws of the State, and the rights and obligations of the people of Queensland.
When the SCAs were created, the SCAA was formed to ensure the integrity of the constitution.
When the state government of the time created the SCAg, it also created the Supreme Commission of Audit, a body charged with reviewing and recommending reforms to the state judiciary.
At the time, the majority of SCAs members were from the State Government.
Over the years, the current state government has increased its SCAg membership, and is the first to use the term “SCSAG”.
How did the SCGs decision come about?
In March last year, a group called the Supreme Judicial Council of Queensland (SJCQ) called for a change in the constitution to allow the state to set its own rules and laws for the court system.
The SCAG decided to consider that request.
According to a 2016 article in The Australian, the Queensland Supreme Court, headed by Justice Day, and including Justice Anthony Fauci, considered a series of amendments to the constitution in order to avoid “confusion”.
The amendments sought to ensure judicial independence, reduce reliance on the states courts, increase accountability and limit the role that the SCAI should play.
While it was agreed to