FACTUAL ADDENDUM
In the period since Mr. Burns approached you, your investigations have established the following facts:
[16] The uranium being stored in the warehouse is unirradiated uranium- 233.
[17] The Company processes and exports the uranium to China.
[18] The Minister has never coordinated with the Australian
Safeguards Office on the point of how the Minister’s power under the Act are to
be exercised and who can exercise them.
In your application you may refer to these facts using the paragraph numbers above.
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS AND
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Based on the Facts Scenario in the Assignment Question document, your knowledge of the unit and your further research into relevant legislation and case law, you are to prepare an Application for Federal Judicial Review
1. Form 66 is intended to be a brief summary of the submissions, and form 17 is where the detailed submissions are to be included. While form 66 indicates that there needs to be a separate Form 66’s for each decision / conduct / failure, we will allow multiple reviews to be in the same document (should you think that you need multiple reviews). Combine forms 66 and 17 in the same document, with form 66 coming first and form 17 after that.
2. Students should argue and counter argue at least five (5) grounds of review in the application. This is the minimum and should not be taken as the ideal number of grounds of review. Many more grounds that can be found in the factual scenario. How many you think you need to argue is a decision you need to make for yourself.
Obviously the more grounds the make the less detailed you can be and vice versa. The benefit of covering more grounds is that if one of them fail you might have another as back up. However, the disadvantage is that you might be unable to argue all of them convincingly within the word limit. This is a balancing act you will have to manage.
3. Sections 7(1) and (2) each count as separate grounds. Each subparagraph in ss 5 and 6 (e.g. 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b)), count as individual grounds. So if you argue s 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(a), these count as two grounds and not one. The exception to this rule is with ss 5(1)(e) and 6(1)(e). Sections 5(1)(e) and 6(1)(e) are not counted as grounds (as these sections are defined by ss 5(2) and 6(2)). Instead, their grounds are individuated based on the subparagraphs of ss 5(2) and 6(2) – i.e. 5(2)(a) is one ground, 5(2)(b) is one ground and so on and so forth.