QLD Evidence of Who the Law Applies to?

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

Rob Legat - SBPL

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
16 February 2017
2,452
514
2,894
Gold Coast, Queensland
lawtap.com
For common usage terms, usually the dictionary. From memory, the courts usually use the Macquarie. I only have the Australian Pocket Oxford, which defines a person as an individual human being.

The Queensland Acts Interpretation Act defines a person as including an individual and a corporation.

The law doesn't like to get too tricky with basic terms and concepts, especially common law. If the average, reasonable person in the street would look at you and say you're a person, then you're a person. The Courts also generally don't appreciate having their time wasted on peurile arguments (in their opinion). Hell, I've tried to argue complex legal concepts in front of a judge and gotten shut down because it's not the direction they wanted to go in.
 

cuttyshatface

Well-Known Member
24 May 2017
52
1
199
Queensland
Within Queensland, loosely:
- Section 2 of the Constitution Act 1867 allows the government to make laws for the "peace welfare and good government of the colony in all cases whatsoever".

- Section 11A of the Constitution Act 1867 provides that the Governor is the Queen's representative in Queensland.

- The Constitution of Queensland 2001 sets out various functions; including the manner in which the Legislative Assembly operates, jurisdiction of the Supreme and District Court, and local government.

- Each Act will state within it what and to whom it is applicable.

- All laws in Queensland are made by one of two ways:

(1) By an Act of Parliament, which is a where a Bill passes through the Legislative Assembly and is voted on, and then receives Royal assent from the Governor; or

(2) By power of delegation in an Act of Parliament for certain reserved matters (eg: local Council by-laws).

So, all laws in Queensland are only laws by assent of the Queen. Therefore, any validly passed Act in Queensland has whatever application it says it does; which is effectively on the Queen's say so.

This 'evidence' that the legislative acts apply to people would be classified as prima facie evidence do you not think? What irrefutable evidence would be used to support the prima facie case that the legislative acts apply to people?
 

Rob Legat - SBPL

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
16 February 2017
2,452
514
2,894
Gold Coast, Queensland
lawtap.com
Prima facie basically means 'until proven otherwise'. If you accept that legislative acts apply to people as "prima facie evidence", then you accept they do until proven otherwise.

I would say that other 200 years of an established system of law, an overwhelming majority of the population during that time abiding by the legislation, and the prevalence of a society based on those legislative concepts is a pretty good support for that 'prima face' position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cuttyshatface

cuttyshatface

Well-Known Member
24 May 2017
52
1
199
Queensland
Prima facie basically means 'until proven otherwise'. If you accept that legislative acts apply to people as "prima facie evidence", then you accept they do until proven otherwise.

I would say that other 200 years of an established system of law, an overwhelming majority of the population during that time abiding by the legislation, and the prevalence of a society based on those legislative concepts is a pretty good support for that 'prima face' position.
My definition for 'prima facie' is 'on the face of it/on first sight' however I will incorporate the definition you have presented. In a criminal proceeding the Acts 'bind all persons' and so forth so the assumption is that these Acts apply to all. If that presumption was put to the test as in 'What evidence would then be submitted into the proceeding to affirm this presumption?'
 

Rob Legat - SBPL

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
16 February 2017
2,452
514
2,894
Gold Coast, Queensland
lawtap.com
There are two fundamental errors in your reasoning:

1. You're applying your own definitions to things. You don't get to do that. And I think this may be the crux of the matter.

2. You're assuming the court will entertain an argument that the legislation doesn't apply. I can assure you that it won't. If you're lucky, you'll get a judge who will give you a long, lengthy explanation that will be miles better than what I can provide you with. If you're neither lucky nor unlucky, the judge will likely roll their eyes at you and suggest you get serious about your matter. If you're unlucky, you'll get a warning for contempt.

If the court accepts something as true, it doesn't need to have evidence presented. You can ask the court to consider any question you like. Whether they do or not is up to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iamthelaw

cuttyshatface

Well-Known Member
24 May 2017
52
1
199
Queensland
There are two fundamental errors in your reasoning:

1. You're applying your own definitions to things. You don't get to do that. And I think this may be the crux of the matter.

2. You're assuming the court will entertain an argument that the legislation doesn't apply. I can assure you that it won't. If you're lucky, you'll get a judge who will give you a long, lengthy explanation that will be miles better than what I can provide you with. If you're neither lucky nor unlucky, the judge will likely roll their eyes at you and suggest you get serious about your matter. If you're unlucky, you'll get a warning for contempt.

If the court accepts something as true, it doesn't need to have evidence presented. You can ask the court to consider any question you like. Whether they do or not is up to them.
Your observation that I may be applying my own meanings is duly accepted, I myself can verify this observation. However, my meaning is the only one I may present as I am doing here to verify if I am correct,

Mistakingly you stated I was arguing that the legislation does not apply, however the crucial aspect of my question was, given the assumption that the legislation DOES apply, what evidence, able to be submitted into the proceedings would irrefutably affirm this? As to the court accepting that something is true, would the court/plaintiff/prosecution need to prove it has the capacity to entertain the matter? Or is the defendant/respondent doing something to instigate a jurisdictional default?
 

Rob Legat - SBPL

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
16 February 2017
2,452
514
2,894
Gold Coast, Queensland
lawtap.com
No it's not. You can adopt and use someone else's meaning, it's done all the time - such as when anybody uses a dictionary.

My apologies if I skipped ahead, but that was the apparent outcome of the inquiry to me. The thing is, if the court accepts something to be true then it does not need to be proven. Therefore, there is no need for evidence to be submitted. That is what prima facie refers to - it is accepted at face value. If anyone wants to overcome it, it is up to them to lead evidence as to why that should be the case. If parties in litigation had to prove everything from the ground up, the system would grind to a practical halt. So some things, especially common usage things, are taken as given unless and until a successful argument is made to the contrary.
 

cuttyshatface

Well-Known Member
24 May 2017
52
1
199
Queensland
No it's not. You can adopt and use someone else's meaning, it's done all the time - such as when anybody uses a dictionary.

My apologies if I skipped ahead, but that was the apparent outcome of the inquiry to me. The thing is, if the court accepts something to be true then it does not need to be proven. Therefore, there is no need for evidence to be submitted. That is what prima facie refers to - it is accepted at face value. If anyone wants to overcome it, it is up to them to lead evidence as to why that should be the case. If parties in litigation had to prove everything from the ground up, the system would grind to a practical halt. So some things, especially common usage things, are taken as given unless and until a successful argument is made to the contrary.
Lets do this step by step.
Definition
accept
əkˈsɛpt/
verb
3rd person present: accepts
  1. 1.
    consent to receive or undertake (something offered).
    "he accepted a pen as a present"
    synonyms: receive, agree to receive, welcome, take, take receipt of, get, gain, obtain, acquire, come by More


    antonyms: refuse, reject, turn down
    • give an affirmative answer to (an offer or proposal); say yes to.
      "he would accept their offer and see what happened"
      synonyms: take on, take up, undertake, tackle, take on oneself, shoulder, bear, assume, manage, take responsibility for, be responsible for, engage in, become involved in, take part in, participate in, devote oneself to, concentrate on, address oneself to, go about, set about, approach, handle, get down to, deal with, get to grips with; More




      antonyms: defy
    • dated
      say yes to a proposal of marriage from (a man).
      "Reginald was a good match and she ought to accept him"
    • receive as adequate, valid, or suitable.
      "the college accepted her as a student"
    • regard favourably or with approval; welcome.
      "the Irish never accepted him as one of them"
      synonyms: welcome, greet, let in, receive, receive favourably, embrace, offer friendship to, adopt, integrate
      "she was accepted as one of the family"
    • (of a thing) be designed to allow (something) to be inserted or applied.
      "vending machines that accepted 100-yen coins for cans of beer"
  2. 2.
    believe or come to recognize (a proposition) as valid or correct.
    "this tentative explanation came to be accepted by the men"
    synonyms: believe, trust, give credence to, credit, give credit to, put confidence in, be convinced of, have faith in, count on, rely on, depend on; More

    • take upon oneself (a responsibility or liability); acknowledge.
      "Jenkins is willing to accept his responsibility"
    • tolerate or submit to (something unpleasant or undesired).
      "they accepted the need to cut overheads"
      synonyms: tolerate, endure, put up with, suffer, bear, take, stand, support, submit to, stomach, undergo, swallow; More
If the court accepts something a truth. What evidence had it initially accepted and from where to construe its position?
 

Rod

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
27 May 2014
7,731
1,056
2,894
www.hutchinsonlegal.com.au
Could be a long conversation if every verb and noun is going to be argued.