can't be challenged - read ..., page-56

re: still hope for you lot! Renton Renton Renton

I too am not clear on the possibilities of a judicial Review. But I expect as a minimum it can declare the Bowler decison valid or invalid.

The judicial decision and its arguments will, I expect, then be acted on, if the finding is thje Bowler decision was invalid, for whatever reason.

Does that mean Bowler will be forced to reconsider the s.111 appeal differently? Or will another person be delegated the ministerial role? We have to wait and see.

So, can a judicial review direct the s.111 decision be remade? Probably yes, I'd expect.

Does that mean a future redetermination will not be made with prejudice by the then Minister? No it does not. The Ministerial determination/decision, if carried out properly and in accordance with procedural fairness, can be political. I expect. Which could mean to the average person, brazenly biased. And it will stand.

And is there a possibility that a judicial review could find RIO's s.111 inapplicable to a s.111 appeal?

I personally may decide to wait for such a decision because if RIO's application can be struck down, found to not be an appeal that s.111 can consider, then I'd expect CAZ's appliaction for an exploration lease over Shovelanna would proceed normally to its formalisation. And then the name Shovelanna would, I hope, disappear from all refernces to licence application E46/678.

PS: In order for a determination on the validity of RIO's application to appeal under s.111, there appears to me to be no othr course of action on the part of CAZ.

CAZ has applied under FOI for many documents. One of which is the legal advice from the State's Solicitors Office to the Minister and the Department of Industry and Resources.

I look forward to CAZ obtaining all the documemets which, to date CAZ has not been privileged to read.

So, what do you think about the decision in terms of transparency? Or, do you own shares in RIO? If I ever did, my decision to but RIO would not change my stance in opposition, so far, to the Bowler decision.

In fact, I consider s.111 to be bad law. s.111 should leave such a public interest test to the courts.

I remain very curious about whether s.111 only allows the Minister to find reasons why an exploration lease application should not be granted in the public interest. And if, that means he has no power to compare the public interest merits of competing exploration lease applications separated in time. As, it appears, is the case between the CAZ and RIO exploration lease applications.