Article 14.1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law … Article 14.3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees in full equity: (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing. Article 14.5. Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.
2.
Minogue v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, MarshalJ, unreported, 12 October 1998.
3.
Outline of Submissions of the International Commission of Jurists, at pp.4–5, para 8 in Minogue v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, VG 744 of 1997.
4.
Outline of Submissions, above, p.4, para 8.
5.
Outline of Submissions, above, para 2.
6.
Outline of Submissions, above, p.6, para 10 (the ‘Covenant’ being the ICCPR).
7.
Outline of Submissions, above, p.14, para 22.
8.
Minogue v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1999) FCR 438.
9.
Rich v Groningen and Others (1997) 95A Crim R272.
10.
Rich v Groningen and Others, above, p.284 under the heading ‘Matters raised’.
11.
Minogue v Williams [1999] FCA 1589 was a suit brought by me against the General Manager of Barwon Prison in the High Court of Australia claiming human rights violations and personal injury — different circumstances from those which gave rise to Minogue v HREOC. The matter was remitted to the Federal Court for the jurisdictional question to be decided. I failed to convince the Court that I had enlivened the jurisdiction of the High Court pursuant to s.75(i) of the Constitution. See Minogue v Williams (WeinbergJ, unreported) [1999] FCA 1589.
12.
The order for costs against me was later made a moot point after I appealed the decision, and after bar table negotiations the public prison system agreed to drop its claim for costs and never to ask for costs if I were to litigate against them in the future. See Minogue v Williams [2000] FCA 125. Judgment delivered in Melbourne on 17 February 2000 by RyanMerkel and GoldbergJJ which details the capitulation of prison authorities on the costs issue.
