And when like in this case when some lawyers say that legislation won't stand up in the High Court, politicians should listen to them and get the legislation redrafted so it will.
Well the High Court points out that Chapter III of the Australian Constitution says it's the High Court that is supposed to hand out punishments for criminal guilt, not politicians. How then will it be possible to punish terrorists by stripping them of citizenship seeing that section 36D of the Citizenship Act is unconstitutional?
Presumably they would need to make a law that says judges can impose the citizenship stripping as a punishment rather than having a politician passing judgement.
High Court judgement snippet: "s 36D (of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)) is invalid because itpurports to repose in the Minister the exclusively judicial function of punishing criminal guilt,contrary to Ch III of the Constitution. The Court held, contrary to the respondents' argument, thatCh III makes punishment of criminal conduct exclusively judicial even if the punishment isseparated from the adjudication of that criminal guilt"
