Kuczborski v Queensland

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAFRENCH CJ,HAYNE, CRENNAN, KIEFEL, BELL, GAGELER AND KEANE JJSTEFAN KUCZBORSKI  PLAINTIFFANDTHE STATE OF QUEENSLAND  DEFENDANTKuczborski v Queensland[2014] HCA 4614 November 2014B14/2014ORDERThe questions asked by the parties in the further amended special case dated 23 July 2014 and referred for consideration by the Full Court be answered as follows:Question 1Does the plaintiff have standing to seek a declaration that any, and which, of the provisions referred to in the schedule to these questions (other than Criminal Code (Q), sections 60A, 60B(1) and 60C, and Liquor Act 1992 (Q), sections 173EB to 173ED) is invalid?AnswerNo.Question 2Is the relief which the plaintiff seeks in answer to question 3 (other than the relief sought in relation to the Criminal Code (Q), sections 60A, 60B(1) and 60C, and Liquor Act 1992 (Q), sections 173EB to 173ED) hypothetical?AnswerIt is unnecessary to answer this question.Question 3Is any, and which, of the provisions referred to in the schedule invalid on the ground that it infringes the principle of Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51?AnswerNone of ss 60A, 60B(1), 60B(2) and 60C of the Criminal Code (Q) or ss 173EB, 173EC and 173ED of the Liquor Act 1992 (Q) is invalid on the ground that it infringes the principle in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW).  The plaintiff does not have standing to challenge the validity of the other provisions in the schedule.Question 4Who should pay the costs of the special case?AnswerThe plaintiff.ScheduleVicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (Q)Criminal Code...