8 Jun 2022
The Court granted interim orders halting further implementation because the applicants demonstrated a tenable challenge to the lawfulness of the Council's use of cl 11(b) sch 10 LGA 1974 for this project and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the applicants' existing business interests pending substantive determination.
16 Oct 2019
The Court held monitoring the appellant up to 24/7 between 26 May 2008 and 22 August 2012 was unlawful because neither the Parole Act nor the IRRP authorised person-to-person monitoring outside the hours the programme was delivered and s107K restricted 24/7 person-to-person monitoring to court/Parole Board-imposed conditions and limited durations; the appellant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that 24/7 person-to-person monitoring continued after 22 August 2012 and the IRRP was not shown to breach statutory requirements such that it warranted quashing.