Responses from Two Attorneys-General of Territories

Both Attorneys-General of Tasmania and Northern Territory did not clarify whether they would intend to intervene in the substantive appeal (M76 of 2005), but informed that they did not “intend to intervene in these proceedings” in relation to appeals of costs (M77, 129 & 130 of 2005).

They might held that were in the Courts’ jurisdiction to punish Hilda because she had persistently pursued her rights and obligations under the Constitution.

(files below are downloadable as .jpg files)

Letter from Solicitor-General of Tasmania 26/04/06
Letter from Solicitor-General of Northern Territory 02/05/06

High Court will make orders on 10 May

The High Court could not decide whether Upholding People’s Rights under the Constitution in respect of Hilda’s appeal was of public importance over seven months. After filing and serving Notices of a Constitutional Matter, the High Court quick decided, in 10 workdays, without any hearing, to make “publication of reasons and pronouncement of order” on 10 May 2006.

(file below are downloadable as .jpg file Letters 03/05/2006 from the Senior Registrar of the High Court:
M76 of 2005 M77 of 2005 M129 of 2005 M130 of 2005)

The Judges of the High Court are looking at this website and will decide whether Upholding People’s Rights under the Constitution in respect of Hilda’s appeal is of public importance on Wednesday, 10 May 2006.

(file below is downloadable as .doc file.
letter to Senior Registrar of the High Court 05/05/06)

The Attorneys-General of the States and of the Territories are looking through this website and ought to decide whether Upholding People’s Right under the Constitution in respect of Hilda’s appeal is of public importance by Wednesday, 10 May 2006.

(files below are downloadable as .doc file)

Email to Attorney-General of QLD 05/05/06
Email to Attorney-General of Tasmania 05/05/06
Email to Attorneys-General of els States and Territories 05/05/06