GEELONG'S NEXT BROWNLOW MEDALIST?

[BenDoolan]

On what grounds would the QC be able to take the AFL to court in the instance of Brad Smith? "The vibes" argument, perhaps? Mabo? The law of bloody common sense?

Excuse my ignorance, and excuse the fact that I have had a shot of Chartreuse, but couldn't you argue discrmination based on age? That is definitaley one criteria of discrimination you could argue I would have thought?

[jimmyc1985]

On what grounds would the QC be able to take the AFL to court in the instance of Brad Smith? "The vibes" argument, perhaps? Mabo? The law of bloody common sense?

Excuse my ignorance, and excuse the fact that I have had a shot of Chartreuse, but couldn't you argue discrmination based on age? That is definitaley one criteria of discrimination you could argue I would have thought?

Not really, because Brad Smith and other AFL hopefuls over the age of 23 have other means open to them in which to join the AFL (e.g. by nominating for the PSD). If they had no means of joining the AFL at all, then naturally the rule may be discriminatory, but the AFL offers them other avenues to join the AFL, hence i struggle to think how it's a rule that could be attacked on that basis.

By the way, i'm not saying i necessarily agree with the under 23 rookie restriction, i just don't think it could possibly be viewed as discriminatory.

[BenDoolan]

On what grounds would the QC be able to take the AFL to court in the instance of Brad Smith? "The vibes" argument, perhaps? Mabo? The law of bloody common sense?

Excuse my ignorance, and excuse the fact that I have had a shot of Chartreuse, but couldn't you argue discrmination based on age? That is definitaley one criteria of discrimination you could argue I would have thought?

Not really, because Brad Smith and other AFL hopefuls over the age of 23 have other means open to them in which to join the AFL (e.g. by nominating for the PSD). If they had no means of joining the AFL at all, then naturally the rule may be discriminatory, but the AFL offers them other avenues to join the AFL, hence i struggle to think how it's a rule that could be attacked on that basis.

By the way, i'm not saying i necessarily agree with the under 23 rookie restriction, i just don't think it could possibly be viewed as discriminatory.

Yeah I'm cool with that. If they are able to get on the list through other avenues then there is no discrimination. Now "the vibes" is an interesting avenue in which to challenge.......

[jimmyc1985]

On what grounds would the QC be able to take the AFL to court in the instance of Brad Smith? "The vibes" argument, perhaps? Mabo? The law of bloody common sense?

Excuse my ignorance, and excuse the fact that I have had a shot of Chartreuse, but couldn't you argue discrmination based on age? That is definitaley one criteria of discrimination you could argue I would have thought?

Not really, because Brad Smith and other AFL hopefuls over the age of 23 have other means open to them in which to join the AFL (e.g. by nominating for the PSD). If they had no means of joining the AFL at all, then naturally the rule may be discriminatory, but the AFL offers them other avenues to join the AFL, hence i struggle to think how it's a rule that could be attacked on that basis.

By the way, i'm not saying i necessarily agree with the under 23 rookie restriction, i just don't think it could possibly be viewed as discriminatory.

Yeah I'm cool with that. If they are able to get on the list through other avenues then there is no discrimination. Now "the vibes" is an interesting avenue in which to challenge.......

You know, 'the vibes' argument has been argued in front of the High Court by some of this country's best barristers on a number of occasions since The Castle came out!!! And apparently it has actually been given some sort of credence (but only by Kirby i think, so that doesn't really count )

[BenDoolan]

On what grounds would the QC be able to take the AFL to court in the instance of Brad Smith? "The vibes" argument, perhaps? Mabo? The law of bloody common sense?

Excuse my ignorance, and excuse the fact that I have had a shot of Chartreuse, but couldn't you argue discrmination based on age? That is definitaley one criteria of discrimination you could argue I would have thought?

Not really, because Brad Smith and other AFL hopefuls over the age of 23 have other means open to them in which to join the AFL (e.g. by nominating for the PSD). If they had no means of joining the AFL at all, then naturally the rule may be discriminatory, but the AFL offers them other avenues to join the AFL, hence i struggle to think how it's a rule that could be attacked on that basis.

By the way, i'm not saying i necessarily agree with the under 23 rookie restriction, i just don't think it could possibly be viewed as discriminatory.

Yeah I'm cool with that. If they are able to get on the list through other avenues then there is no discrimination. Now "the vibes" is an interesting avenue in which to challenge.......

You know, 'the vibes' argument has been argued in front of the High Court by some of this country's best barristers on a number of occasions since The Castle came out!!! And apparently it has actually been given some sort of credence (but only by Kirby i think, so that doesn't really count )

I got a giggle out of the initial "vibes" comment, and now I'm laughing hysterically that this has been used in all seriousness!!!!

[jimmyc1985]

From the Fin Rev, 17/11 - although it was Gleeson who accepted it - my apologies to Kirby!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for state governments and unions may have been guilty of trying to rehabilitate the discredited notion of state reserve powers in their challenge to the Work Choices legislation but, to their credit, they didn't resort to a legal argument run by a bumbling fictional solicitor in an Australian movie nearly 10 years ago.

That is more than can be said for many other lawyers who have appeared in the High Court since The Castle was filmed in 1997.

Research by Hearsay has revealed that the "vibes" principle has been raised in argument in nine cases in the High Court, either by advocates or judges.

It was a line first used by suburban solicitor Dennis Denuto in The Castle: "In summing up, it's the constitution, it's Mabo, it's justice, it's law, it's the vibe . . . and . . . No, that's it . . . It's the vibe!"

Two years later, the vibes principle made its first appearance in argument in the case of RPS v The Queen, when judge Kenneth Hayne took issue with one counsel.Bellanto: If I can start at the last point, your honour, it is not wrongful reception of evidence and it is the way the matter was left to the jury. Hayne: That means nothing to me, Mr Bellanto. It is like saying, "It's in the vibes." What is your complaint?

Two months later in 1999, Mary Gaudron archly asked one barrister in Crampton v The Queen whether he was advocating the court adopt the principle.Gaudron: It is in the vibes, in the vibes of the address, is it? Ellis: No, your honour, in the totality rather than the vibes.Hayne: Read as a whole in its context. Ellis: Your honour, I know that there is a subtle difference between "in its vibes" and "its totality" but the reality is that each case does have to be dealt with on its particular merits or particular circumstances and, in this case, there were certain particular problems.

The principle received ultimate judicial recognition by Chief Justice Murray Gleeson the following year in State of NSW v Taylor.Gleeson: I wondered whether we were going to hear from you an argument to the following effect. There was a discussion very early on about what might be called the vibes, rather than the words here, but was not part of the purpose of this legislation to encourage, if I may use a neutral word, workers not to pursue common law rights?

From there on, lower courts began adopting the vibes precedent. NSW Court of Appeal president Keith Mason referred to "the vibes" of pre-Judicature "Equity" in Harris v Digitial Pulse. And on it went.

In the case of Favell v Queensland Newspapers last year, Guy Reynolds told the court: "I will be reminding your honours of that. That is what is known in this court as the vibe of the article."

The most recent case in which the vibes principle arose was only two months ago in the High Court, when one of Australia's leading constitutional lawyers, Stephen Gageler, SC, claimed in Gould and Albarran v Olifant & Ors that it was becoming commonplace in the courts.Gageler: I know, but your honours dismissed it on the basis that it was a licensing scheme, and that is what I say here. This is a licensing scheme. If they are right - and we wanted a high appellate pronouncement to quash this sort of Rich heresy that is sort of creeping there. I am sorry, your honours, there is nothing wrong with Rich. It is the constitutional vibe that has been taken by Rich is creeping through the judiciary.

Hearsay would like to remind readers that while good facts make good law and bad facts make bad law, the corollary of that is not that good comedy makes good law. What's more, some lawyers really should find a new joke sheet.
--------------------------------------------------------------

[BenDoolan]

From the Fin Rev, 17/11 - although it was Gleeson who accepted it - my apologies to Kirby!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for state governments and unions may have been guilty of trying to rehabilitate the discredited notion of state reserve powers in their challenge to the Work Choices legislation but, to their credit, they didn't resort to a legal argument run by a bumbling fictional solicitor in an Australian movie nearly 10 years ago.

That is more than can be said for many other lawyers who have appeared in the High Court since The Castle was filmed in 1997.

Research by Hearsay has revealed that the "vibes" principle has been raised in argument in nine cases in the High Court, either by advocates or judges.

It was a line first used by suburban solicitor Dennis Denuto in The Castle: "In summing up, it's the constitution, it's Mabo, it's justice, it's law, it's the vibe . . . and . . . No, that's it . . . It's the vibe!"

Two years later, the vibes principle made its first appearance in argument in the case of RPS v The Queen, when judge Kenneth Hayne took issue with one counsel.Bellanto: If I can start at the last point, your honour, it is not wrongful reception of evidence and it is the way the matter was left to the jury. Hayne: That means nothing to me, Mr Bellanto. It is like saying, "It's in the vibes." What is your complaint?

Two months later in 1999, Mary Gaudron archly asked one barrister in Crampton v The Queen whether he was advocating the court adopt the principle.Gaudron: It is in the vibes, in the vibes of the address, is it? Ellis: No, your honour, in the totality rather than the vibes.Hayne: Read as a whole in its context. Ellis: Your honour, I know that there is a subtle difference between "in its vibes" and "its totality" but the reality is that each case does have to be dealt with on its particular merits or particular circumstances and, in this case, there were certain particular problems.

The principle received ultimate judicial recognition by Chief Justice Murray Gleeson the following year in State of NSW v Taylor.Gleeson: I wondered whether we were going to hear from you an argument to the following effect. There was a discussion very early on about what might be called the vibes, rather than the words here, but was not part of the purpose of this legislation to encourage, if I may use a neutral word, workers not to pursue common law rights?

From there on, lower courts began adopting the vibes precedent. NSW Court of Appeal president Keith Mason referred to "the vibes" of pre-Judicature "Equity" in Harris v Digitial Pulse. And on it went.

In the case of Favell v Queensland Newspapers last year, Guy Reynolds told the court: "I will be reminding your honours of that. That is what is known in this court as the vibe of the article."

The most recent case in which the vibes principle arose was only two months ago in the High Court, when one of Australia's leading constitutional lawyers, Stephen Gageler, SC, claimed in Gould and Albarran v Olifant & Ors that it was becoming commonplace in the courts.Gageler: I know, but your honours dismissed it on the basis that it was a licensing scheme, and that is what I say here. This is a licensing scheme. If they are right - and we wanted a high appellate pronouncement to quash this sort of Rich heresy that is sort of creeping there. I am sorry, your honours, there is nothing wrong with Rich. It is the constitutional vibe that has been taken by Rich is creeping through the judiciary.

Hearsay would like to remind readers that while good facts make good law and bad facts make bad law, the corollary of that is not that good comedy makes good law. What's more, some lawyers really should find a new joke sheet.
--------------------------------------------------------------

It must be fun practicing law! To think that once upon a time ago the thought crossed my mind. Back then I thought it was dull. How wrong was I? It's very entertaining!

[uptick]

I can't wait for the time someone like this Brad Smith dude has an elder brother who is a top line QC who had his dinner reservation cancelled to enable Vlad to fill his fat face with xmas pudding, decides to take the AFL to court, and finishes this stupid system off for good. The bloody clubs should be allowed to have as many players of any background they like on their lists. Sure put an overall salary cap on the clubs, but who cares if one club has 55 playes all getting $150,000 and another club, 38 players getting whatever, its a free world, we're all adults just get on with it. Stuff these endless restrictions.

On what grounds would the QC be able to take the AFL to court in the instance of Brad Smith? "The vibes" argument, perhaps? Mabo? The law of bloody common sense?

You said it
"The law of bloody common sense?

", Actually restraint of trade.

You either enjoy making subtle, sarcastic humour, or embarassing yourself. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the former.[/quote]

Steady tiger.