Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] FCA 1315

Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] FCA 1315

The objections were allowed in part because some documents were sufficiently connected to the subject matter and development of the impugned agreements and legislation to be admitted, some third party opinion documents were relevant only for the limited contextual purpose permitted under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), international documents were not relevant to the issues in the proceeding, documents forming proceedings in Parliament were prohibited by s 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth), and the newspaper report at tab 114 was inadmissible hearsay.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Ruling on Evidence Objections / Ruling on Admissibility of Documents During Trial
Outcome
Respondents' objections to admissibility of documents were allowed in part, with some documents excluded, some admitted for a limited purpose, and the remaining objections not upheld.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Documents' 'relevance' 'hearsay' 'opinion Evidence' 'parliamentary Privilege' 'limited Admission of Evidence Under S 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Documents' 'relevance' 'hearsay' 'opinion Evidence' 'parliamentary Privilege' 'limited Admission of Evidence Under S 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure Ruling on Evidence Objections / Ruling on Admissibility of Documents During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether documents tendered by Mr Spencer were relevant to issues concerning impugned intergovernmental agreements, vegetation clearance controls and related legislation.' 'Whether third party opinion documents should be admitted to prove the truth of their contents or only for a limited contextual purpose.' 'Whether particular documents were inadmissible by operation of s 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth).' 'Whether a newspaper report tendered to prove statements attributed to Senator Robert Hill was inadmissible hearsay.' 'Whether international documents and Australian documents related to international environmental issues were relevant to the proceeding.']

Ratio Decidendi

The objections were allowed in part because some documents were sufficiently connected to the subject matter and development of the impugned agreements and legislation to be admitted, some third party opinion documents were relevant only for the limited contextual purpose permitted under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), international documents were not relevant to the issues in the proceeding, documents forming proceedings in Parliament were prohibited by s 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth), and the newspaper report at tab 114 was inadmissible hearsay.

Court Disposition

Respondents' objections to admissibility of documents were allowed in part, with some documents excluded, some admitted for a limited purpose, and the remaining objections not upheld.

Orders

  • ['The documents at tabs 1, 30, 35, 68, 114, 163, 223, 251, 285, 286, 287, 288 and 314 in Part B of the Court Book are inadmissible.' 'Pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), the documents at tabs 87, 117, 228, 236, 311 and 317 in Part B of the Court Book are admitted for the limited purpose of constituting...