Ruling on impact on judicial independence, not validity of the bikie laws
Rebecca Ananian-Welsh writes in The Conversation (18.11.14) ‘Simply because the High Court upheld the laws in keeping with judicial independence does not mean that the laws are necessary, effective or in line with vaguer constitutional ideals such as personal liberty, freedom of movement and association, or equality before the law. As for the VLAD Act and amendments to the Criminal Code and Bail Act, this decision gives no indication of their potential validity. If another jurisdiction adopts these laws, that government will face the prospect of another constitutional challenge, most likely brought by someone with clear standing. It is disappointing that days of argument in the High Court failed to result in a decision on the validity of all the challenged provisions. For lawyers, this case is a warning to take issues of standing seriously before launching an action. For the community, it demonstrates the limited scope and incremental pace of constitutional litigation.’