| dbo:abstract
|
- Re Culleton (No 2) was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns on 3 February 2017. The case was an influential decision concerning the construction of Section 44(ii) of the Constitution, which held that Rod Culleton's conviction for larceny meant that he was incapable of being chosen as a Senator and the subsequent annulment of that conviction did not operate retroactively to deny the legal effect to the conviction from the time that it was recorded. (en)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 12527 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:court
|
- High Court of Australia as the Court of Disputed Returns (en)
|
| dbp:dateDecided
| |
| dbp:fullName
|
- In the matter of questions referred to the Court of Disputed Returns pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 concerning Senator Rodney Norman Culleton (en)
|
| dbp:judges
| |
| dbp:name
| |
| dbp:transcripts
|
- * 21 Nov
* 21 Nov
* 7 Dec
* 31 Jan
* 2 Mar
* 10 Mar (en)
|
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Re Culleton (No 2) was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns on 3 February 2017. The case was an influential decision concerning the construction of Section 44(ii) of the Constitution, which held that Rod Culleton's conviction for larceny meant that he was incapable of being chosen as a Senator and the subsequent annulment of that conviction did not operate retroactively to deny the legal effect to the conviction from the time that it was recorded. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
