Please see the attached file for questions.The following information was also published in relation to the assignment: The object of Part A of this assignment is for you to develop your skills in...

Running Head: NSW
NSW
Student Name:
Student ID:
Date:
Contents
1.    What are the material facts of this case?    3
2.    What were the ground(s) of appeal?    3
3.    Procedural history: What was said in the Court of Criminal Appeal?    3
4.    What did the High Court decide? Why    4
5.    Was Mx Wall authorised under the Impounding Act 1993 (NSW) to act as they did? All events took place in June 2021    5
References    7
1. What are the material facts of this case?
The appellant, Alo-Bridget Namoa, was found guilty in conspiring to do acts in preparation
for a terrorist act contrary to ss 11.5(1) and 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (“the
Code”).1 The offence occurred between 8 December 2015 and 25 January 2016.2
Prior to the trial, an application for permanent stay had been rejected by the trial judge.3 The
application was rejected because Alo-Bridget Namoa and her co-conspirator were married
and as husband and wife, could not be guilty of conspiracy under the Code.4
The Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales concluded the Alo-
Bridget Namoa and her co-conspirator was guilty of conspiring with each other within the
meaning of s 11.5.5 Therefore, s 11.5 of the Code applied to the appellant and the appeal must
be dismissed.
The appellant, Alo-Bridget Namoa, was found guilty in conspiring to do acts in preparation
for a terrorist act contrary to ss 11.5(1) and 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (“the
Code”).1 The offence occurred between 8 December 2015 and 25 January 2016.2
Prior to the trial, an application for permanent stay had been rejected by the trial judge.3 The
application was rejected because Alo-Bridget Namoa and her co-conspirator were married
and as husband and wife, could not be guilty of conspiracy under the Code.4
The Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales concluded the Alo-
Bridget Namoa and her co-conspirator was guilty of conspiring with each other within the
meaning of s 11.5.5 Therefore, s 11.5 of the Code applied to the appellant and the appeal must
be dismissed.6
he appellant, Alo-Bridget Namoa, was found guilty in conspiring to do acts in preparation
for a terrorist act contrary to ss 11.5(1) and 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (“the
Code”).1 The offence occurred between 8 December 2015 and 25 January 2016.
Appellant Alo-Bridget Namoa was found guilty of conspiracy to prepare for terrorist acts in violation of Article 11.5(1) and Article 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code (Federal) ("Code"). The crime occurred among December 8, 2015 and January 25, 2016. Before the trial, the trial judge rejected the applications for permanent residence[footnoteRef:2]. The application was refused as Alo-Bridget Namoa as well as her co-conspirators were married or were husbands and The Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of NSW found that Alo-Bridget Namoa moreover her co-conspirators were guilty of conspiracy in the defination of Section 11.5. Hence, Article 11.5 of the Code applies to the complainant, as well as the appeal should be dismissed. [2: Somesh Chaurasia, "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION" .]
2. What were the ground(s) of appeal?
Can the appellant appeal a general law regulation that spouses cannot plan alone because this regulations affects the defination of "conspiracy" in Article 11.5 of the Code?
3. Procedural history: What was said in the Court of Criminal Appeal?
Judges Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Keane, Edelman, Gleeson JJ, and Steward collaborated to make a joint judgment....