!"#$!"#$%&##'$("))*$%&'()*)+)*&',-./,0.1&&)

Table of Contents

COMPETITORS ................................................................................................................... 1

COMPETITION TIMELINE ................................................................................................. 2

WELCOME FROM THE ORGANISERS .............................................................................. 3

SIR HARRY GIBBS ............................................................................................................. 4

THE SELWAY CUP .............................................................................................................. 6

FIXTURE — PRELIMINARY ROUNDS .............................................................................. 8

PREVIOUS WINNERS ...................................................................................................... 14

GRAND FINAL JUDGES ................................................................................................... 15

2019 MOOT PROBLEM ................................................................................................... 16

SPONSORS ....................................................................................................................... 23

COMPETITION RULES ..................................................................................................... 24

MAPS & DIRECTIONS ..................................................................................................... 33

CAMPUS RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 34

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

We acknowledge the Wurundjeri Peoples of the Kulin Nations as the Traditional Owners of the land on which Melbourne Law School stands. We pay our re-

spects to their Elders both past, present and emerging.

1

Competitors

AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVER-SITY

Wei Wen Phang Lochlan Plane

Hugh Wetherill

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVER-SITY

Keira Germech Samuel Cass

Jared Hee

BOND UNIVERSITY Madeleine Bowater

Jesse Clough Jonathan Sahhar

CURTIN UNIVERSITY

Xavier Hazard Monique Eeson Elise Christou

LA TROBE UNIVERSITY

Mohamed Naleemudeen Ali Raza

Daniel Reljic

MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY Casey Thomas

Nina Stammbach Sarah Schooley

MONASH UNIVERSITY

Joshua Kaye Lorena Stents Nhu-Y Nguyen

MURDOCH UNIVERSITY

Ella Ewart Conor McCavana

Madison Colangelo

QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

Giulia Marrama Teagan Matthews Matthew Hickey

RMIT

William Hade Zoe Burdock

Megan Clover

UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE Amelia Atkinson

Jana Humzy Bianca Tramaglino

UNIVERSITY OF CANBERRA

Blade Sanchez Jessica Lauc Jackson Ho

UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

Tyrone Connell Bodhi Shribman

Zoe Brown

UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

John David Lidbetter Jason Dong

Leigh Gordon

UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE Conrad James Victor George

Nicholls John Tearle Aesha Awan

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME

AUSTRALIA Maddison Hogan

Emily-May Roberts Paige O’Shea

UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND Hannah Braiding-Watson

Tooru Nishido Rachna Nagesh

UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

Georgia Reid Giacomo Rotolo-Ross

Juliette Mei Li Van Ratingen

UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA Samuel Camp

Sylvia Lawrence Noah Grubb

UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

SYDNEY Alexander Leal Smith

Lane Pitcher Mikaela Smith

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUS-

TRALIA Alexander Gibson

Olivia Everett Bridget Rumball

UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG

Sophie Whittaker Bethany McGhie Emerson Hynard

2

Competition Timeline

Thursday 3 October

9:00am – 9:30am Competitor Registration Ground Floor Foyer (West), Mel-

bourne Law School (‘MLS’)

10:00am – 10:30am Opening Ceremony Room G08, MLS

11:00am – 1:00pm Round 1 MLS (See Fixture)

1:00pm – 2:00pm Lunch Level 1 Foyer, MLS

2:30pm – 4:30pm Round 2 MLS (See Fixture)

Friday 4 October

9:40am – 9:50am Competitor Sign-in Melbourne University Law Students’

Society Office, Level 2 (East), MLS

10:00am – 12:00pm Round 3 MLS (See Fixture)

12:00pm – 1:00pm Lunch Level 1 Foyer, MLS

1:30pm – 3:30pm Round 4 MLS (See Fixture)

4:00pm – 6:00pm Cocktail Event &

Announcement of the Break

Prince Alfred’s Rooftop & Bar

6:30pm – 8:30pm Quarter Finals MLS (See Fixture)

Saturday 5 October

9:10am – 9:20am Competitor Sign-in Melbourne University Law Students’

Society Office, Level 2 (East), MLS

9:30am – 11:30am Semi Finals MLS (See Fixture)

2.00pm - 5.00pm Grand Final Court 1 (8A), Federal Court Mel-

bourne

7:00pm – 10:00pm Gala Dinner and Awards

Presentation Woodward Conference Centre —

Level 10, MLS

3

Welcome from the Organisers Dear Competitors We warmly welcome you to the 2019 Edition of the Sir Harry Gibbs Constitutional Law Moot. Since its inception in 2002, the ‘Gibbs Moot’, as it is colloquially known, has become recognised as Aus-tralia’s premier constitutional law moot. In 2019, we will be welcoming a total of 22 teams during the competition weekend in October. The competition presents a valuable opportunity for students to compete in front of some of Aus-tralia’s most respected judges and public law advocates. In particular, we are grateful to have the Honourable Justice Patrick Keane AC (HCA), Professor the Honourable Marilyn Warren AC (former VSCA CJ) and the Honourable Justice Richard Niall QC (VSCA) adjudicating the 2019 Grand Final. We are thankful to Dr Stephen Donaghue QC, the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, for writing the 2019 Moot Problem. In addition to the assistance of many judges, barristers and academics, we are also indebted to our sponsor, the Australian Government Solicitor for its generous support. We would also like to thank The Federation Press and the Australian Association of Constitutional Law for their contributions. For all those who have travelled from interstate, welcome to Melbourne and to Melbourne Law School! We hope that you enjoy your brief stay here. We wish everyone the best of luck for the weekend. We hope you make the most of the opportunity to meet other law students and to network with members of the legal profession. Warm regards Sarah Watling, Pia Mitchell and Jessica Flatters 2019 Directors of Competitions Melbourne Law School Ken Kiat, Cellina Christoffelsz and Chloe Smith 2019 Gibbs Moot Officers Melbourne Law School

4

Sir Harry Gibbs

Sir Harry Gibbs is the deserving eponym for Australia’s most prestigious federal constitu-tional law mooting competition. Professionally, as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Queens-land, and then later as a Justice and Chief Jus-tice of the High Court of Australia, his Honour had a profound impact on the development of Australian Jurisprudence. Personally, Sir Harry Gibbs was a strong leader but a calm man. His intelligence, honesty and unwavering resili-ence garnered him the respect of his peers and left a lasting imprint on the legal profession. His Honour’s constitutional philosophy was traditional and characterised by its fidelity to the original text and spirit of the nation’s founding document. Fittingly, the High Court continues to be guided by the principles set

1 Commonwealth v Hospital Contribution Fund (1982) 150

CLR 49, 56–8 (Gibbs CJ), endorsed in John v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1989) 66 CLR 417, 438–9 (Mason CJ, Wilson, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ), and since by the High Court when considering constitu-tional precedent.

2 See Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168; Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1 (‘The Tas-manian Dam Case’).

3 See, eg, Actors and Announcers Equity Association v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169; Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes (1971) 124 CLR 468; R v Trade Prac-tices Tribunal; Ex parte St George County Council (1974)

out by Sir Harry Gibbs regarding appropriate-ness of overruling constitutional precedent.1 His Honour was also a strong defender of states’ rights and federalism, dissenting against broad interpretations of Common-wealth legislative power in the fields of exter-nal affairs2 and corporations,3 and in the defi-nition of duties of excise.4 Sir Harry Gibbs be-lieved the Constitution in its current form – providing for a federal union under a constitu-tional monarchy, and governed by the princi-ple of responsible government – to be the best protector and arbiter of the competing rights and interests in our political system.5 That said, Sir Harry Gibbs was not an intransigent jurist, and his view of Australia’s independence is also apt to describe his ideal of constitutional jurisprudence: as a ‘result of an orderly devel-opment – not as the result of a revolution’.6

130 CLR 533; R v Federal Court of Australia; Ex parte WA National Football League (1979) 143 CLR 190 (‘Ad-amson’s Case’); State Superannuation Board (Vic) v Trade Practices Commission (1982) 150 CLR 282.

4 Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria (1983) 151 CLR 599.

5 See Sir Harry Gibbs, ‘Re-Writing the Constitution’ (1992), Launching Address to the Samuel Griffith Soci-ety.

6 Southern Centre of Theosophy Inc v South Australia (1979) 145 CLR 246, 261 (Gibbs CJ).

5

The following concise biography is extracted from Sir Harry Gibbs’ obituary, delivered by the Hon Michael Kirby AC CGM.7 Born in 1917, Harry Talbot Gibbs was the elder son of a solicitor practising in Ipswich, Queens-land. Throughout his life he was known to his friends as Bill. He excelled at school and in his studies at the University of Queensland, where he graduated in Arts and Law with double First-Class Honours. He was admitted to the Queensland Bar just before the beginning of the Second World War. He saw service in the AIF in New Guinea, was promoted and mentioned in despatches. On demobilisation, he married Muriel Dunn, whom he had met at Law School. It was a happy marriage, blessed with three daughters and a son. The oldest daughter, Margaret, spoke for the family at the Memorial Service. Hers was a powerful speech about a loving fa-ther, husband and grandfather and a man who was always true to his word. Bill Gibbs' career at the Queensland Bar flour-ished. He took Silk in 1957. in 1961, at the then young age of 44, he was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland. He was the first law graduate from the University of Queensland to join that Bench. He quickly demonstrated his skill and authority, perform-ing trial and appellate work with equal ability in every field of law. At one stage it seemed that he would be appointed Chief Justice of Queensland. However, he was passed over and soon, in 1967, he moved to the federal judiciary. For a short time, he became the Federal Judge in Bankruptcy, based in Sydney. But in 1970 he was elevated to the High Court of Australia. He served on that Court, including for six years as Chief Justice, until his retirement in 1987. His judicial writings continue to be read in contem-porary cases for their broad knowledge of law and simplicity of expression.

7 The full text of his Honour’s speech is available online:

<https://www.michaelkirby.com.au/images/sto-ries/speeches/2000s/vol56/2005/2038-SIR_HARRY_GIBBS_OBIT_JULY_2005.doc>.

The time of Mr Justice Gibbs on the High Court was one of turbulence and challenge. Contro-versy surrounded Chief Justice Barwick's advice to the Governor-General (Sir John Kerr) that was followed by the dismissal of Prime Minister Whitlam and his government. Equal, or even greater, turbulence, surrounded accusations against, and the trials of, Lionel Murphy, then a judicial colleague on the High Court. The lat-ter events happened substantially in the period that Sir Harry was Chief Justice. There were many awkward moments. His well-known sense of calm was often called upon to help steer the nation's highest court through those difficult years. In the 1990s, I came to know Sir Harry Gibbs quite closely in Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM) ... Bill Gibbs became the Chair of the National Council of ACM. We had many meetings. Suddenly we found ourselves in a close unexpected alliance. For him, this was not only a matter of personal loyalty to the Queen but also a deep conviction about the merits of constitutional monarchy as a temper-ate system of government that worked well. In the last five years of his life, he was obliged to undertake dialysis; but he was never daunted, and he never complained. With Bill Gibbs, in the law, in the Academy and in life, what you saw was what you got. He was for-mal and courtly; but decent and unpretentious. He was a true Australian of the Old School. His broad Ipswich accent never left him. He was never false. He was honoured many times in his lifetime. To the end he was loyal and de-voted to his wife Muriel, who was also a fre-quent companion in the activities of the Acad-emy. He enjoyed Academy functions and we enjoyed his participation in them. Those of us who remember those times will always carry a strong sense of respect and affection for Bill Gibbs - a most notable leader and example in the law and in Australian civic life.

6

The Selway Cup

The Selway Cup is awarded to the winner of the Sir Harry Gibbs Constitutional Law Moot. Bradley Maxwell Selway (pictured above) was Solicitor-General of the State of South Australia, Adjunct Professor at Adelaide University, and Justice of the Federal Court of Australia. The in-sight, enthusiasm and innovation that Bradley brought to his various roles in the legal profes-sion should serve as a source of inspiration and aspiration for young lawyers and students alike. The following is extracted from the eulogy given by the Hon John Doyle AC, Chief Justice of South Australia at the funeral service for Justice Selway.8 I worked closely with Brad for nine years be-tween 1986 and 1995 when I was Solicitor-Gen-eral. For about six years of this time Brad was Crown Solicitor. After I became Chief Justice in 1995, Brad was appointed Solicitor-General and appeared before me on a number of occasions until his appointment to the Federal Court in 2002.

8 The full text of his speech is available online: < https://search.informit.org/documentSummary;res=IE-LAPA;dn=200507377>.

He obtained his degree in law in 1977. Soon af-ter he was offered a position as an articled clerk to the then Crown Solicitor, Graham Prior. That was the beginning of the long friendship be-tween them. Brad spent the rest of his career as a lawyer in the service of the State, becoming Crown Solicitor in 1989, and then Solicitor-Gen-eral in 1995. Along the way he was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1994. He was appointed a Judge of the Federal Court in November 2002. They are the bare bones of his career. It goes without saying that Brad was involved in many significant matters and cases while he worked in the Crown Solicitor's Office, then as Crown Solicitor and as Solicitor- General. He ad-vised the State Government on many complex, significant and sensitive matters. He was re-garded by informed observers as an outstanding Solicitor-General. Brad was a prodigious worker. He seemed to have boundless energy and enthusiasm for his work. Not only did he put in a huge effort. He

7

worked quickly and efficiently. Whatever the is-sue, he would read widely and produce written material quickly. Everyone who had the pleasure of working with Brad was well aware of his extraordinary indus-try, and of his ability to produce high quality work quickly. Brad did not use his speed and ef-ficiency to create free time for himself. He was willing to shoulder all tasks and virtually any task, as the occasion required. Brad was a constitutional lawyer who ranked in the top handful of his time Australia wide, be-cause his intellectual strengths were matched by a thorough understanding and deep apprecia-tion of public law and of public administration. In the area of State constitutional law, a subset of the wider topic, I have always considered Brad the best in Australia. He had an unequalled knowledge of the law and practice of State Gov-ernments, and especially of the legal aspects of public finance. I should mention his winning of the prestigious British Foreign Office Chevening Scholarship, which enabled him in 1990 to undertake further research at the University of London. Brad was a creative thinker. I will give two ex-amples. In 1987 he and I appeared before the High Court in Cole v Whitfield. This was a major case. In it the High Court took a completely new approach to the famous s 92 of the Australian Constitution. The decision of the High Court was influenced to a significant degree by material found in the record of Convention Debates be-tween about 1890 and 1900, being the

debates on proposed Australian Constitutions that were considered in the 10 years or so prior to federation. Although I had the privilege of presenting that argument, it was Brad's idea to delve into the material. It was Brad, and re-searchers guided by him, who searched the rec-ord of Debates and produced the volumes of ma-terial that we put before the Court. This was the first case in which the High Court embraced the use of materials of this kind, and it resulted in a string of cases in which they did. At the end of the day, this was Brad's idea. In 2002 Brad accepted an appointment as ad-junct Professor in Law at Adelaide University. His involvement in the faculty of law reflected his deep interest in the long-term development of the law, his enjoyment of intellectual debate about the law, and his interest in students. Brad was a lawyer of a quality equalled by few. He made a mark in his chosen area of a kind that few of us will ever make.

8

Fixture — Preliminary Rounds

Round 1 Round 2

Plaintiff Defendant Plaintiff Defendant

3 22 20 7

2 16 4 9

10 19 13 6

8 15 17 8

14 21 5 14

7 13 16 3

1 4 15 2

6 20 22 10

9 5 21 1

12 18 19 12

11 17 18 11

Round 3

Round 4

Plaintiff Defendant Plaintiff Defendant

19 11 7 5

21 8 12 4

4 14 3 21

18 2 8 22

20 12 2 19

22 9 14 20

5 10 9 17

13 1 1 15

16 6 10 16

15 7 6 18

17 3 11 13

14

Previous Winners

The Hon Chief Justice Robert French AC delivers the Selway Cup to 2012 winner, Angus Abadee (Univer-sity of Sydney). Angus mooted the entire competition by himself as his other teammates unfortunately

had to pull out!

Year Winner Year Winner

2018 University of Sydney 2009 University of Technology Sydney

2017 University of Melbourne 2008 University of Sydney

2016 Australian National University 2007 University of Sydney

2015 University of Melbourne 2006 University of Newcastle

2014 Competition not held 2005 University of Technology Sydney

2013 University of Queensland 2004 University of Technology Sydney

2012 University of Sydney 2003 Macquarie University

2011 University of Melbourne 2002 Bond University

2010 Competition not held

15

Grand Final Judges

The Honourable Justice Patrick Keane AC Patrick Anthony Keane was appointed to the High Court in March 2013. At the time of his appointment he was Chief Justice of the Fed-eral Court of Australia. He served as a judge of the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Queensland from 2005–10 before joining the Fed-eral Court. He is a graduate from the University of Queensland and Oxford University. He was admitted to the Queensland Bar in 1977 and in 1988 he was appointed Queen’s Counsel. He was Solicitor-General for Queensland from 1992 to 2005. Justice Keane AC was appointed a Companion in the General Division of the Order of Aus-tralia in 2015.

Professor the Honourable Marilyn Warren AC

Marilyn Warren was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria in November 2003. She commenced her legal career in the Vic-torian Public Service and was admitted to practice in 1975. Chief Justice Warren signed the Roll of the Victorian Bar in 1985 and served as a member of the Bar Council's Law Reform Committee for eight years. In 1997 she took silk. In 1998 she was appointed to the Supreme Court of Victoria and presided in all jurisdictions. In 2004 she was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Laws in recognition of her service to the law and the community. In 2005 she was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia for service to the judiciary and to the legal profession par-ticularly the delivery and administration of law in Victoria, to the com-munity in areas affecting the social and economic conditions of women and to forensic medicine internationally. In 2006, she was appointed as Lieutenant-Governor of Victoria.

The Honourable Justice Richard Niall Richard Niall QC was appointed as the Solicitor-General of Victoria on 9 June 2015. Before this appointment he was in private prac-tice as a member of the Victorian Bar for 20 years. He was ap-pointed as Senior Counsel in 2010. Niall has regularly appeared in the High Court, the Supreme Court of Victoria and Federal Court in a wide range of proceedings at both first instance and appellate level. In addition to a strong public law focus he has wide experi-ence in industrial law, acting for both employers and employees at state and federal levels. His advice to governments has ranged across constitutional law, education, freedom of information, dis-crimination, coronial inquests and planning, customs, tax, pa-tents, migration, fisheries management, environmental protec-tion, financial regulation and trade practices.

16

2019 Moot Problem IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE REGISTRY No M32 of 2019 BETWEEN:

MARTIN JONES AND ZARA JONES Plaintiffs

AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Defendant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA CANBERRA REGISTRY No C13 of 2019 BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF VICTORIA Plaintiff

AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Defendant

PROBLEM

1. Mr Martin Jones and his wife, Ms Bri Jones, resided in Ballarat, Victoria. Both were born in

Australia to Australian parents, and both became Australian citizens on their birth. They are not citizens of any other country.

2. In 2015, after having been radicalised on the Internet, Martin and Bri pledged their allegiance to ISIS. In February 2016, Martin left Ballarat to travel to the Middle East to fight with ISIS.

3. Shortly after Martin’s departure, Bri discovered that she was pregnant. In September 2016, she gave birth to a daughter, Zara. On her birth, Zara became an Australian citizen by oper-ation of s 12 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

4. Bri was estranged from her family, and had no friends in Ballarat. By November 2016, she was in a precarious financial situation, and she decided that she and Zara would relocate to the Middle East to be with Martin. She travelled to the Middle East in January 2017, and the couple resumed living together, along with Zara. They moved between various locations in the Middle East depending on where Martin was needed to fight for ISIS against foreign forces. He also engaged in terrorist activities against the local populations in several Middle Eastern countries.

17

5. In November 2018, Bri carried out a suicide attack that killed 50 people, including 18 soldiers from the United States of America. Reporting in the international press suggested that Mar-tin may have coerced Bri into participating in that attack.

6. On 27 January 2019, following a lengthy public debate about the threat of radicalised foreign fighters returning to Australia and committing acts of domestic terrorism, the Common-wealth Parliament passed the Citizenship Revocation Act 2019 (Cth). That Act received Royal Assent the following day, and it commenced immediately.

7. In the Second Reading Speech to the Citizenship Revocation Bill, the Minister for Home Af-fairs (Minister) said:

This Act is intended to ensure that no people who supports organisations like ISIS by going to fight in foreign conflict zones can retain their status as Australian citizens. Any person who travels to a foreign country to support a terrorist organisation such as ISIS has acted in a way that is repugnant to the most fundamental values our community holds dear. They have acted in a way that is incompatible with their membership of the Australian community. If they return to Australia, they or their families will pose a threat to that community, including by inciting or carrying out acts of terrorism within Australia. This measure is critical to protect our community from the threat of terrorism posed by returning fighters. For those reasons, the Government has decided that it needs to have the power to ensure that these people will cease to be members of our Australian community.

8. The Citizenship Revocation Act relevantly provides:

6 Revocation by Minister

(1) The Minister for Home Affairs may, by writing, revoke a person’s Australian citizenship if:

(a) the person is aged 14 or older;

(b) the person fights for, or is in the service of, a declared terrorist or-ganisation;

(c) the person’s service or fighting occurs outside Australia; and

(d) the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public inter-est for the person to remain an Australian citizen.

(2) The person ceases to be an Australian citizen at the time the decision under subsection (1) is made.

18

(3) A declared terrorist organisation is a terrorist organisation declared by the Minister by legislative instrument to be a declared terrorist organisation for the purposes of this section.

(4) Subsection (1) applies to a person who is an Australian citizen regardless of how the person became an Australian citizen (including a person who became an Australian cit-izen at birth).

(5) For the avoidance of doubt, and notwithstanding any international obligations to the contrary, the Minister may make a decision under subsection (1) in respect of a person regardless of whether that person is a national or citizen of a country other than Aus-tralia.

…

8 Children of parents who cease to be citizens

(1) If:

(a) a person ceases to be an Australian citizen under section 6; and

(b) at the time the person ceases to be an Australian citizen, that person is a parent of a child aged under 18;

then:

(c) the Minister may, by writing, revoke the child’s Australian citizenship; and

(d) if the Minister does so—the child ceases to be an Australian citizen at the time of the revocation.

9. On 29 January 2019, the Minister declared by legislative instrument that ISIS is a declared terrorist organisation.

10. On 14 February 2019, on the basis of information received from security agencies, the Min-ister decided to revoke Martin’s citizenship under s 6(1) of the Citizenship Revocation Act. Following that revocation, the Minister decided to revoke Zara’s Australian citizenship under s 8(1) of the Citizenship Revocation Act, on the basis that Martin was the primary influence on her life, and that in those circumstances there was an unacceptable risk that Zara would grow up to pose a threat to the Australian community.

11. On 1 April 2019, following the substantial defeat of ISIS forces in the Middle East, Martin decided that he wanted to return to Australia. He contacted a journalist and informed her that he wished to bring Zara home to Australia, so that he could raise her in peace and safety. He said that he could never give her up, but that they had no-where else to go, and he feared they would both die if they remained in the Middle East. The journalist published an account of her discussion with Martin.

19

12. Public debate in Australia was divided on whether Martin should be permitted to return to Australia to raise “baby Zara”. Large public rallies were held on both sides of the debate, and a go-fund-me campaign was conducted to raise money to bring baby Zara home, and to fight the matter all the way to the High Court if need be.

13. On 12 April 2019, Martin and Zara presented themselves at an international airport in the Middle East and attempted to board a flight to Australia. They were refused permission to board, on the basis that neither of them were Australian citizens, and they did not have visas to enter Australia.

14. On 14 April 2019, New Zealand offered to confer citizenship upon baby Zara (but not her father) if her father permitted her to be brought to New Zealand.

15. On 15 April 2019, Martin and Zara commenced a proceeding against the Commonwealth in the High Court of Australia seeking declarations that, respectively, ss 6 and 8 of the Citizen-ship Revocation Act are invalid.

16. On 17 April 2019, the Premier of Victoria conducted a press conference in Melbourne, stating:

The case of baby Zara illustrates how the Citizenship Revocation Act is punitive in its application to the innocent family members of ISIS fighters and will only serve fur-ther to isolate and vilify vulnerable parts of our community, ultimately to the detri-ment of the State of Victoria and its people. The Government I lead will always stand up for what is right. Martin Jones is a terrorist. We do not support his return to Australia. But baby Zara must be permitted to return. If the price of her return is allowing Martin Jones to return as well then, as a community, we must pay that price. For that reason, Victoria has informed the Commonwealth that if baby Zara and her father are allowed to return to Australia then we will invest whatever law enforce-ment resources it takes to keep the community safe from Martin Jones.

That offer has been flatly refused. The result is that baby Zara is left stateless and in danger on the other side of the world. That is unacceptable. That is why I today announce the establishment of a Royal Commission under the Inquiries Act 2016 (Vic) to examine the baby Zara affair.

The terms of reference of that inquiry will include terms requiring the Royal Com-missioner to examine: (a) the Commonwealth’s decision-making in relation to the Jones family, including the risks posed by Martin Jones, so that Victoria Police will know what it needs to do to protect the community from him if he is allowed to return; (b) whether more could have been done by our security agencies to protect Bri and baby Zara; and (c) the appropriateness of the Citizenship Revocation Act as a legislative response to the complex problems posed by foreign fighters and their families in a modern society that believes in human rights. The Commonwealth hav-ing refused to take the lead on these matters, Victoria has no choice but to do so.

20

17. The Inquiries Act 2016 (Vic) (Inquiries Act) relevantly provides:

4 Act to bind Crown

(1) This Act binds the Crown in right of Victoria and, so far as the legislative power of Parliament permits, the Crown in all its other capacities.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, this Act is intended to bind a person who receives a notice to produce documents or to attend before a Royal Commission even if that person cannot be subjected to criminal penalties for refusing or failing to comply with that notice.

17 Power to compel production of documents

For the purposes of its inquiry, a Royal Commission may serve written notice on a person requiring the person to produce a specified document or other thing to the Royal Commission by a specified time and in the specified manner.

18 Variation or revocation of notice to produce or notice to attend

(1) A person on whom a notice to produce is served may make a claim to the Royal Commission that the person has a reasonable excuse for failing to com-ply with the notice.

(2) Without limiting what may be a reasonable excuse for the purposes of sub-section (1), it is a reasonable excuse for a person to fail to comply with a no-tice by refusing to give information to a Royal Commission if the infor-mation—

(a) in the case of a natural person, might tend to incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty; or

(b) is the subject of parliamentary privilege; or

(c) is the subject of public interest immunity; or

(d) is prohibited from disclosure by a court order.

(3) If the Royal Commission is satisfied that a person has a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with a notice, the Royal Commission must not require com-pliance with the notice to produce to that extent.

32 Legal professional privilege does not apply

It is not a reasonable excuse for a person to refuse or fail to comply with a require-ment under this Act to give information (including answering a question) or produce

21

a document or other thing to a Royal Commission that the information, document or other thing is the subject of legal professional privilege.

46 Offence to fail to comply with a notice to produce or attend

A person who is duly served with a notice to produce or notice to attend in relation to a Royal Commission must not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail to comply with the notice.

Penalty: 240 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years.

18. On 26 April 2019, acting pursuant to s 17 of the Inquiries Act, the Royal Commissioner issued a notice to produce (the Notice) to the Commonwealth of Australia (which was served on the Australian Government Solicitor in Melbourne) requiring the Commonwealth to produce:

a. all legal advice given to the Commonwealth concerning the constitutionality of the Citi-zenship Revocation Act, or its compatibility with Australia’s international obligations;

b. all documents that concern the risk posed to the Australian community by Martin Jones; and

c. all documents that examine the human rights implications of the Citizenship Revocation Act

19. The documents that fall within the scope of the Notice include: (a) a legal advice dated 27 December 2018 provided by the Commonwealth Solicitor-General to the Minister concerning the validity of the Citizenship Revocation Act and its consistency with Australia’s international obligations; and (b) a policy paper prepared within the Attorney-General’s Department ex-amining the human rights impact of the Citizenship Revocation Bill.

20. On 28 April 2019, Victoria commenced proceedings in the High Court seeking a declaration that the Commonwealth was required to comply with the Notice.

21. The High Court expedited the proceeding commenced by the Jones, and the separate pro-ceeding commenced by Victoria, and listed them together for hearing (after being advised that the same counsel team would be appearing for both the Jones and Victoria).

The following questions have been reserved for the consideration of the Full Court pursuant to s 18 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth):

In proceeding M32 of 2019:

1. In its application to Mr Martin Jones, is s 6(1) of the Citizenship Revocation Act invalid on the ground that it is not a law with respect to s 51(xix) of the Constitution?

2. In its application to Ms Zara Jones, is s 8(1) of the Citizenship Revocation Act invalid on the ground that it is not a law with respect to s 51(xix) of the Constitution?

22

In proceeding C13 of 2019:

3. Is the Inquiries Act contrary to an implied intergovernmental immunity to the extent that it im-poses an obligation on the Commonwealth to produce:

a. the legal advice prepared by the Commonwealth Solicitor-General dated 27 December 2018;

b. the police paper prepared within the Attorney-General’s Department examining the hu-man rights impact of the Citizenship Revocation Bill?

***

NOTES

1. The parties should not refer to any legislative provisions other than those referred to in the above problem. Specifically, for the avoidance of doubt, while the Inquiries Act 2016 (Vic) closely resembles the real Inquiries Act 2014 (Vic), it is a hypothetical Act.

2. The parties should confine their submissions to the constitutional issues specifically identified in the questions reserved for the consideration of the Full Court

___________________________________________________________________________

Melbourne Law School extends its sincerest gratitude to Dr Stephen Donaghue QC, the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, for gratefully writing the 2019 Moot Problem.

Dr Stephen Donaghue QC was appointed Solicitor-General on 14 De-cember 2016 and commenced in the role on 16 January 2017. He holds degrees in Arts and Law from the University of Melbourne and received the Supreme Court Prize as the top graduate in law at the University of Melbourne in 1995. He also holds a DPhil from Oxford University (Magdalen College), where he studied after receiving Menzies and Commonwealth scholarships. Prior to commencing at the Bar, Dr Donaghue was an Associate to Justice Hayne at the High Court of Australia. Dr Donaghue joined the Victorian Bar in 2001 and took silk in 2011.

He appeared regularly before the Full Court of the High Court, principally in matters involving con-stitutional and administrative law, and he also appeared in many complex appellate and trial mat-ters in the Federal Court of Australia.

23

Sponsors

Australian Government Solicitor The Australian Government Solicitor operates as the primary provider of legal services to the Australian Gov-ernment and its various agencies. It forms a part of the Attorney General’s Department and acts as a full-ser-vice legal practice. The AGS is one of Australia’s largest national legal services, with offices in every capital city and approximately 320 lawyers who cover some 40 dif-ferent areas of law related to government. In addition, the AGS offers both clerkship and graduate employ-ment programs. We thank them for their generous sup-port.

Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies

The Centre of Comparative Constitutional Studies aims to actively contribute to the debate on the Australian system of government, to promote understanding of constitutional concepts and to provide a public and specialist resource on constitutional and comparative constitutional issues. The Centre pursues these objec-tives through its activities; research, teaching, infor-mation exchange, provision of resources, consultancies and research collaboration. Thank you to CCCS for pre-paring the 2019 Sir Harry Gibbs Constitutional Law Moot bench brief.

Australian Association of Constitutional Law The Australian Association of Constitutional Law is a fo-rum for scholars and practitioners of constitutional law throughout Australia. The AACL seeks to promote the discipline of constitutional law in Australia as well as supporting its teaching, research and practice. The AACL is affiliated with the International Association of Constitutional Law. Thank you to the AACL for support-ing the 2019 Sir Harry Gibbs Constitutional Law Moot.

24

Competition Rules

PART 1: INTERPRETATION Competition Name 1. This competition will be known as the Sir Harry Gibbs Constitutional Law Moot (‘the Competition’). Definitions 2. In this document:

a. ‘Accredited law school’ means a law school that is geographically located within Australia and has available a Bachelor of Laws and/or a Juris Doctor;

b. ‘Competition’ means the Sir Harry Gibbs Constitutional Law Moot;

c. ‘Competition Organisers’ means the Competition Organising Committee and the Directors of

Competitions at Melbourne Law School;

d. ‘Finals’ means the Quarter Final, Semi Final and Grand Final of the Competition; and

e. ‘Preliminary Rounds’ means rounds one (1) to round four (4) of the Competition.

PART 2: TEAMS Registration 3. By entering this Competition, all competitors agree to be bound by the Competition Rules outlined

in this document. 4. Each accredited law school may nominate a team of two (2) to three (3) people to compete in the

Competition. 5. Each accredited law school is limited to entering one (1) team to compete in the Competition. 6. The two (2) or three (3) nominated members shall remain the same for the duration of the Compe-

tition. 7. In a team of three (3) members, two (2) will act as Counsel and one (1) will act as Solicitor. Team

members may rotate positions between Senior Counsel, Junior Counsel and Solicitor during the Com-petition.

8. In a team of two (2) members, both will act as Counsel. Team members may rotate positions be-

tween Senior and Junior counsel during the Competition. 9. Team members must not have graduated with a law degree in any jurisdiction.

25

10. Each team may only have one (1) coach to assist in preparation for the Competition. The coach may

be a faculty member. 11. Teams must register by the registration date, 18 July 2019 at 17:00 AEST. The details of each team's

competitors and coach must be finalised by 2 August 2019 at 17:00 AEST. 12. When registration for the Competition has closed, each team will be allocated a team number. The

team numbers will be drawn at random by the Competition Organisers.

Penalty: Any contravention of a rule of Part 2 may result in disqualification or loss of points as de-cided at the absolute discretion of the Competition Organisers.

Release of the Problem Question 13. The problem question will be released via email to competitors on 5 August 2019 at 17:00 AEST.

Every effort will be made to ensure that the problem is constructed in a way that does not disad-vantage or advantage participants from any particular jurisdiction.

14. The last date for clarifications of the problem will be Monday 26 August 2019 at 17:00 AEST. The

clarifications will be released to all teams on Tuesday 3 September 2019. 15. Competitors will be asked to prepare the same problem question for all rounds of the Competition.

Each team must prepare a written memorandum for both the plaintiff and defendant. 16. All moots will be held before the High Court of Australia. Jurisdiction will be assumed. Research and Preparation 17. All research and preparation for the moots must be conducted solely by the competitors. Law school

staff coaches must not be involved in the writing of the written memoranda. However, competitors may receive general advice and assistance with respect to skills relevant to the Competition prior to the release of the problem question.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 17 may result in disqualification.

18. After the release of the problem question until the completion of the competition, coaches may only

provide general commentary on the quality of the team’s legal and factual arguments. General com-mentary in this sense is limited to basic characterizations about merit and non-merit of the argu-ments and does not include advice on how to improve arguments, the correction of error, or high-lighting omissions.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 18 may result in disqualification.

19. Competitors may not use electronic transmission devices at any time for any purpose during the

competition, including, but not limited to, laptops, mobile phones (that are not switched off or on airplane mode) and computers. Penalty: Any contravention of clause 19 may result in disqualification.

Release of the Draw

26

20. The Preliminary Rounds will consist of a single (1) pool and teams will be randomly drawn against each other prior to the commencement of the competition.

21. The draw will be released to teams via email on 23 September 2019 at 17:00 AEST.

PART 3: WRITTEN MEMORANDA 22. Teams will be required to submit written memoranda for the Plaintiff and Defendant.

23. Written memoranda are to be submitted electronically in PDF format by email to

melbunilsscompetitions@gmail.com 24. The title of the document must be in the format [(Team Number) – (Plaintiff/Defendant)]. For exam-

ple, [3 – Plaintiff].

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 22–24 may result in a 5-mark penalty per contravention. 25. The deadline for receipt of written memoranda for both the Plaintiff and Defendant is 16 September

2019 at 17:00 AEST.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 25 may result in a 2-mark penalty per 10 minutes (or part thereof).

26. The written memoranda will be distributed accordingly to the opposing teams and to the Judges of

the moot.

a. In the Preliminary Rounds, teams will be provided with the written memorandum of the oppos-ing teams on 20 September 2019.

b. In the Finals, teams will be provided with the written memorandum of the opposing team at

least one (1) hour prior to their moot. 27. Written memoranda must contain a cover sheet, an outline of the structure of the team’s submis-

sion, major arguments raised, allocations of speaking time and a list of authorities on which counsel rely.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 27 may result in a 5-mark penalty.

28. Written memoranda for each party must not exceed ten (10) pages in length, plus an additional one

(1) cover page and two (2) pages for a list of authorities.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 28 may result in a 2-mark penalty. 29. Each team must format their written memorandum, cover page and list of authorities in accordance

with a standard format:

a. Times New Roman, size 12 font must be used;

b. Line spacing must not be less than 1.5;

c. Margins must not be less than 2.0 cm on either side;

27

d. The division of time between speakers must be specified; and

e. Teams must not indicate their university name on any part of the written memorandum.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 29 (or its sub-sections) may result in a 3-mark penalty (only

applied once). 30. Written memoranda may not be revised for any purpose whatsoever once they have been submit-

ted.

31. During oral submissions, teams may not deviate from their written memoranda, unless invited to do so by the Judge.

PART 4: ORAL SUBMISSIONS 32. The Competition is comprised of four (4) Preliminary Rounds, a Quarter Final, a Semi Final and a

Grand Final.

33. Each moot will consist of at least two (2) sides (e.g. one (1) Plaintiff and one (1) Defendant or any such title as specified in the question).

Procedure 34. Each team will have forty (40) minutes to present their case (excluding time taken to give appear-

ances and time extensions granted by the Judge).

a. The time may be divided between Senior and Junior Counsel as they see fit, although each speaker must speak for a minimum of 15 minutes.

b. The division of time must be specified in written memoranda.

35. Judges may grant an extension of time up to five (5) minutes per competitor at their absolute dis-

cretion.

36. There will be no right of reply, and penalties will apply if Counsel exceeds their allocated or extended time. A competitor must stop speaking when their time has expired, or when asked to do so by the Judge.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 36 will result in a 2-mark penalty per 30 seconds exceeded

time. A right of reply will attract a penalty of between 5–30 marks. 37. No written material may be tendered to the Judge during oral submissions.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 37 may result in a penalty of 10 marks per page handed to the Judge

38. Competitors must not be more than five (5) minutes late for the commencement of the moot.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 38 will result in a penalty of two (2) marks per five (5)

minutes late or part thereof.

28

39. Procedural submissions must not be made during the moot.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 39 will result in a 5-mark penalty.

Preliminary Rounds 40. All teams will compete in each Preliminary Round. 41. Competitors may not observe, nor are they to be briefed on, proceedings of a Preliminary Round in

which they are not competing.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 41 may result in disqualification. 42. Teams will be randomly allocated to sides. Every endeavour will be made to ensure that a team is

not disadvantaged by the draw and will not meet the same team twice in the Preliminary Rounds. 43. In the case of an uneven number of teams in the Competition, a three-way moot will be held in each

of the Preliminary Rounds.

a. There will be one (1) Plaintiff and two (2) Defendants.

b. One (1) team each round (the Odd Team) will be randomly drawn against another team (the Ghost Team) who is also the Plaintiff.

c. The Ghost Team’s score from that round will be compared against the Odd Team to determine

the winner of that fixture.

d. The Odd Team will be declared the winner of their moot if their total score exceeds the total score of the Ghost Team.

e. The Plaintiff team can only be declared the winner against the Defendant team drawn in the

fixture. The Defendant team can only be declared winner against the Plaintiff team drawn in that fixture.

44. In a three-way moot, the following procedure will apply.

a. The Plaintiff, Defendant, Odd Team and two (2) judges will hear the oral submissions of the Plaintiff.

b. Immediately following the Plaintiff’s oral submissions, both the Defendant and the Odd Team

will present their oral submissions. The Odd Team will be moved to a different room to present their oral submissions, along with one (1) Judge.

c. The same Judge will hear the oral submissions of the Ghost Team and the oral submissions of

the Odd Team.

d. Teams will only be given one (1) set of opposing written memoranda. Teams are expected only to respond to the arguments of the opposing written memoranda they receive.

e. As an exception to clause 41, the Odd Team is permitted to observe the Ghost Team’s oral sub-

mission but must not observe any other part of that moot.

29

45. In the event that one (1) or more team(s) withdraw from the competition, resulting in an uneven

number of teams, randomly allocated teams will be matched into a three-way moot as outlined in clause 43.

Timekeeping 46. Responsibility for timekeeping and adherence to allotted time periods and breaks rests with the

Judges. 47. If resources and volunteers are available, timekeepers and timekeeping devices may be provided,

and, in such cases, they will be solely responsible for all time keeping and penal- ties. A timekeeper shall not be an individual from the same team as any competitor in that particular moot.

48. Decisions by judges as to elapsed times are final and non-reviewable. Observers 49. Observation of the Competition is allowed for Semi-Final and Grand Final rounds only. Although ob-

servation during these rounds is encouraged, potential for disruption must be minimised. Observers should not enter or leave the room whilst a competitor is speaking.

50. Judges may, if they wish, request that observers leave the room while they confer. Outside of this

discretion, observers may watch all segments of a round.

PART 5: JUDGING AND SCORING

Judging 51. Every effort must be made by the Competition Organisers and the teams to ensure that Judges are

unaware of the university that competitors are from until after they have finished judging the Com-petition.

52. All Judges must have suitable legal qualifications or relevant experience. Judges will be judges, legal

practitioners, legal academics, or others with demonstrated relevant experience in competitions, and/or relevant professional experience.

53. Judges will be provided with:

a. The moot problem; b. A summary of the issues in the problem (at least one (1) page); c. The score sheet; d. A summary of the Competition Rules; and e. Written memoranda submitted by the teams competing in the moot.

54. Judges will award each individual in the moot a mark out of one hundred (100). 55. Where there is more than one Judge, each Judge will be asked to produce an individual score sheet

and the winner will be determined by the majority opinion. 56. Each team’s score sheets will be submitted by the Judge to the Competition Organisers at the con-

clusion of each moot.

30

Progression from Preliminary Rounds 57. Teams will progress through the Quarter Final based on the procedure of ranking set out in clauses

58 and 59 below.

58. The eight (8) teams with the highest win-loss ratios will automatically progress through. 59. If two (2) or more teams have tied win-loss ratios, accumulated score differential percentages will

be used to separate these teams. This method of calculation aims to remove the scoring discrepan-cies derived from teams being judged by different judges, and teams facing different opponents. The calculations will be made available to any team who requests them.

a. Score differentials are calculated by finding the difference between the scores awarded to both

teams in a fixture. The value of the difference is divided by an average of the total scores of both teams in that fixture. This differential is then expressed as a percentage.

b. The winning team will receive a positive score differential percentage value, whereas the losing

team will receive a negative score differential percentage value. c. The score differential percentages of each team with a tied win-loss ratio will be added together

to give an accumulated score differential percentage.

d. The accumulated score differential percentage of each team with a tied win-loss ratio will be compared side-by-side and the team with the highest value will be ranked higher and thus, pro-gress to the Quarter Final.

Quarter Finals 60. Competitors may not observe, nor are they to be briefed on, proceedings of a Final in which they are

not competing. This does not apply to competitors no longer in the Competition.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 60 may result in disqualification. 61. The draw for the Quarter Final will be seeded based on the procedure of ranking set out in clauses

58 and 59. 62. Teams will be allocated sides by random draw. 63. Quarter Finalists will be announced after the conclusion of the Preliminary Rounds and teams will

be informed of their side. Each team will only compete once in the Quarter Final Round. Semi Finals 64. The winners of each Quarter Final round progress to the Semi Finals. 65. Semi Finalists will be announced after the conclusion of the Quarter Finals. Each team will only com-

pete once in the Semi Final round. 66. Teams will be allocated sides by random draw.

31

Grand Final 67. The winning team from each Semi Final will proceed to the Grand Final. 68. Grand Finalists will be announced after the conclusion of the Semi Finals. 69. Teams will be allocated sides by random draw.

PART 6: PENALTIES AND FORFEITURE

Penalties 70. Where a penalty is levied against a team, the penalty will be divided equally amongst Counsel for

that team. Where an individual competitor is disqualified, their team will be able to continue in the Competition provided that two (2) team members remain in the team.

71. Judges shall not be notified of the application of any penalties at any time by the Competition Or-

ganisers. 72. If a Judge becomes aware that a penalty has been or will be applied, they will be instructed not to

take this penalty into consideration when marking the competitors. 73. The Competition Organisers have full discretion as to the application of all penalties. Forfeiture 74. Any team that forfeits will be deemed to have lost that moot. Counsel for the forfeiting team will be

deemed to have a mark of zero (0) for that round. 75. Any team whose opponents forfeit a round will be deemed to have won that moot. The team’s mar-

gin will be the average of their margins from the other rounds. 76. Any team which forfeits shall be excluded from progressing through to the Finals. 77. A forfeit will be considered to have occurred where a team withdraws after the opponent’s written

memorandum has been released. 78. No member of a forfeiting team is eligible for the award of best speaker.

PART 7: SCORESHEETS AND AWARDS Release of Score Sheets and Rankings 79. Score sheets will be made available to teams one (1) hour after the conclusion of every round. Each

team may only view their own score sheet. Score sheets must be returned to the Competition Or-ganisers immediately afterwards.

32

80. Live rankings will be released via the Competition website <http://mulss.com/competi-tions/Sir_Harry_Gibbs_Constitutional_Law_Moot> at the end of the first day of the Competition. Fi-nal rankings of the Preliminary Rounds will be released via the Competition website at the end of the second day of the Competition.

81. The Judge’s decision is final. No appeals are permitted on the basis of score sheets or rankings. Best Speaker Awards 82. An award for best speaker will be given for the Preliminary Rounds and for the Grand Final. 83. The best speaker of the Preliminary Rounds must have competed in at least three (3) moots. Speakers

will be ranked according to their mean percentage. The mean percentage shall be calculated each round by taking the competitor’s score and dividing it by the total number of points awarded in that moot. This value will then be added to the value derived from the competitor’s other moots and divided by the number of moots they speak in.

84. The award for best speaker of the Preliminary Rounds shall be announced at the Closing Gala. 85. The best speaker of the Grand Final will be selected by the adjudication panel presiding over the

Grand Final. 86. The award for best speaker of the Grand Final will be announced at the Grand Final. 87. In the event of a tie, the competitors will share the prize. Best Written Memorandum Awards 88. Awards will be given for Best Plaintiff Written Memorandum and Best Defendant Written Memo-

randum from the Preliminary Rounds. 89. The best three (3) plaintiff written memoranda and the best three (3) defendant written memoranda

from the Preliminary Rounds will be sent to an independent judging panel, who will select the winner. The written memoranda shall not identify which university the teams are from.

90. The best three (3) plaintiff written memoranda will be selected by the mean points awarded for each

plaintiff memorandum in the Preliminary Rounds. This will be calculated in each round by taking the score for the plaintiff written memorandum from each Judge and dividing it by the total number of points awarded for written memoranda in that moot. This value will then be added to the value de-rived from the plaintiff written memorandum’s scores in other moots and divided by the number of moots in the Preliminary Rounds that the team competes as the plaintiff.

91. The same procedure in clause 90 will be used to determine the best three (3) defendant written

memoranda. 92. The awards for best written memorandum will be announced at the Closing Gala. 93. In the event of a tie, the competitors will share the prize.

33

Maps & Directions

Getting to Prince Alfred’s Rooftop & Bar • 400 metres (~5 mins walk) from Melbourne Law School

Getting to the Federal Court, Melbourne ● Walk to Peel Street and catch Tram 58 to Toorak. Get off at Flagstaff Station (5 stops) – requires

valid Myki ticket; or walk from Melbourne Law School – 1.5km walk (20 minutes)

34

Campus Resources PRINTING Teams will have limited access to printing during the Competition. We strongly recommend teams to print all necessary materials before arriving at the Competition. Should any small print job be re-quired, the relevant documents must be emailed to gibbsmoot@mulss.com. Please allow at least 15 minutes for printing to be completed.

WI-FI The University of Melbourne is part of the Eduroam network. Therefore, if Eduroam has been set up following your home university’s Eduroam instructions before you arrive at Melbourne Law School, you will be able to connect to our free Wi-Fi via that service. TRANSPORT To travel on metropolitan trains, trams and buses, you will need a valid Myki. A Myki is a reusable plastic smartcard that can be purchased for a small fee ($6 for adults, $3 for concessions) at all train stations, many tram stops and in some news agencies. Once a card is purchased, users must load money onto the card to be used as public transport fares. Your Myki will calculate the lowest fare based on where you travel. If you have an Android phone, you can down-load the Mobile Myki app, rather than purchasing a physical Myki. ATMs In Union House (Building 130) you will find a Commonwealth Bank ATM (ground floor, Deakin Court entrance), an ANZ ATM (ground floor, north court entrance) and a Bendigo Bank ATM (basement). On the ground floor of the Biosciences building (Building 143) you can access a NAB Bank and a Commonwealth Bank.

FOOD AND DRINK Lunch will be provided during the preliminary rounds of the competition. However, Melbourne Law School is surrounded by cafes, restaurants and bars in case you require any extra food or refreshments. If you are looking for a heartier meal, Lygon Street is a ten-mi-nute walk from MLS and home to many Italian restau-rants (plus, check out Pidapipo for some of the best gelato in Melbourne). Alternatively, Union House on main campus is a great place for some cheaper meals (check out the Food Coop, Egg Sake or Pronto Pizza, open weekdays 9am - 4pm). For coffee and snacks,

you have multiple options just in the surrounding streets (see below).

35

!"#$%&'(")*(+,"'-+./)012)3.&4"(.-5)3%6+"./)!"#$