Your honours,


It is the belief of the plaintiff that a clear contradiction within The Charter exists in regards to Article 1, Section 2, Clause 7 (A1.S2.C7) and Article 2, Clause 5 (A2.C5). As such the plaintiff calls upon the High Court to reconcile this contradiction by striking from the law A1.S2.C5 in line with the general principle of the primacy of the Bill of Rights.

A2.C5 states the following; "The right to equality and the freedom from the denial of participation based on arbitrary or discriminative criteria." It is the belief of the plaintiff that the open ended and undefined nature of A1.S2.C7, which neither provides a definition of "security threat" nor identifies the procedure by which a nation is to be "found to be" one, meets this definition.

The OED definition of arbitrary is as follows; "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system". This can be broken into three sections;

1. Random choice
2. Personal whim
3. Lack of reason or system

A1.S2.C7 must be considered arbitrary according to all three of these sections. Due to the lack of a definition of "security threat" and the lack of an identified procedure for nations to be "found to be one" such process is subject to both random choice and personal whim. Further, the lack of an identified procedure is a clear example of a lack of system.

A1.S2.C7 allows the Cabinet to declare any citizen to be a security threat at any time, for any reason, and as such is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights' protection against arbitrary or discriminative denial of participation, and as such must be struck from the law, and all existing uses of this unconstitutional provision overturned.

As such, and following from the above argument, the plaintiff submits the following legal question;

Does Article One, Section Two, Clause Seven of the Charter contradict Article Two, Clause Five of the Charter and, if so, are all uses of the provisions within A1.S2.C7 unconstitutional?