<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>JST497- Information Sharing bookshelf 1 by Deborah Scheele</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/deborah_scheele/zr49pwe44s6j</link>
      <description>Here are the readings for this module. Please feel free to share useful readings and links for this topic (double-click to add a resource).</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2018-05-02 22:55:50 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2026-02-09 13:42:19 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Australian Government Investigations Standards</title>
         <author>deborah_scheele</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/deborah_scheele/zr49pwe44s6j/wish/260364762</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Pages 1 - 2 of the<a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/FOI/Documents/AGIS%202011.pdf"> Australian Government Investigation Standards</a> (<strong>AGIS</strong>) provide some general guidance in relation to <em>‘agency relationships’</em> (1.6), <em>‘information sharing’</em> (1.7) and <em>‘international inquiries and foreign evidence’</em> (1.8).  In relation to agency relationships, the AGIS specifically refers to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) as well as <em>‘any secrecy provisions within legislation that may govern information sharing’</em>.  As for international inquiries and foreign evidence, the standards provide that agencies should have written procedures in place in relation to both the <em>Foreign Evidence Act 1994</em> (Cth) and mutual assistance legislation</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-05-14 07:58:51 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/deborah_scheele/zr49pwe44s6j/wish/260364762</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Williams V Keelty </title>
         <author>deborah_scheele</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/deborah_scheele/zr49pwe44s6j/wish/260365623</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>In <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2001/1301.html?query="><em>Williams v Keelty</em> </a>(by reference to the predecessor to 3ZQU <em>Crimes Act</em>) Hely J addressed the question whether the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (<strong>ASIC</strong>) would be under any constraint if, search warrants having been issued for proper purposes relating to criminal offences, it wished to use information obtained from the exercise of the warrants in its existing civil proceeding.  Students will recall the Hely’s comments as follows (at [244]):<br><br></div><blockquote>If entry is gained to premises by means of the compelling nature of a search warrant, and documents are seized, <strong>in my view it would be consistent with general principle to hold that it would be improper for documents seized pursuant to the warrant to be used for any purposes outside those comprehended by the warrant.</strong>That view is consistent with the terms of Part 1AA of the Crimes Act. <strong>Section 3F(5)  is a limited legislative permission to make the things seized available to officers of other agencies and s 3ZV(1) obliges the return of things seized, subject to a contrary order of the court, if the reason for seizure no longer exists, or if it is decided that the things seized are not to be used in evidence (emphasis added).</strong></blockquote>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-05-14 08:03:19 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/deborah_scheele/zr49pwe44s6j/wish/260365623</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>ASIC v Rich</title>
         <author>deborah_scheele</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/deborah_scheele/zr49pwe44s6j/wish/260366282</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>You will have seen from the case of <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2005/62.html?query="><em>ASIC v Rich</em></a> (after citing inter <em>alia Williams v Keelty</em> at [262]-[263] with approval) that Austin J came to a similar conclusion to Hely J.  <em>Williams and Keelty</em> and <em>ASIC v Rich</em> then articulate a significant limitation placed on material seized pursuant to search warrant: documents seized under warrant may only be used for the purposes contemplated by the warrant (including the law authorising the warrant) itself and not used or disseminated for other purposes.<br><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-05-14 08:06:38 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/deborah_scheele/zr49pwe44s6j/wish/260366282</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Hearne V Street</title>
         <author>deborah_scheele</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/deborah_scheele/zr49pwe44s6j/wish/260366507</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>In <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2008/36.html?query="><em>Hearne</em>,</a> the High Court reaffirmed the importance of abiding by the so-called implied undertaking.  In particular, the High Court noted that there is nothing voluntary about it and (per Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ at [105] to [106 ], citing <em>Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department</em> [1983] 1 AC 280 and <em>Bourns Inc v Raychem Corp</em> [1999] 1 All ER 908 among other cases):</div><blockquote><em>[I]t is an obligation to the court, not the other parties, which is implied.  It is for that reason that its breach is treated as contempt.  The obligation is imposed as a matter of law.</em></blockquote>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-05-14 08:07:55 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/deborah_scheele/zr49pwe44s6j/wish/260366507</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Useful websites</title>
         <author>deborah_scheele</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/deborah_scheele/zr49pwe44s6j/wish/260372671</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><strong>Australian legislation and case law resource</strong><br>In relation to legislation, a very useful Australian resource is <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/">AustLII</a> as all Australian legislation and case law can be found on this site. <br><br>Many of the publicly available Commonwealth policies are available too from the <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx">Commonwealth Attorney-General’s</a> website.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-05-14 08:35:44 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/deborah_scheele/zr49pwe44s6j/wish/260372671</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
