MR MARTIN: The background is that prior to 1980 there were, amongst other brands, two substantive brands of ice-cream being marketed in the country, one under the name Peters, the other under the name Pauls.

KIRBY J: Was there a quality differential? Was Pauls not a more high class sort of ice-cream than Peters?

MR MARTIN: Different views were held by different consumers on that subject, I think, your Honour, and there is no evidence bearing directly on that.

KIRBY J: You do not have any samples for us?

MR MARTIN: No, I am afraid not, your Honour.

— Peters (WA) Ltd v Petersville Ltd and Peters Foods Australia Pty Ltd P64/2000 [2001] HCATrans 19 (14 February 2001).

MR MERKEL: So this amendment made it clear that you had to be in detention on a full-time basis. So that is in the extrinsic materials. So there was no question if someone on parole or on home detention would not be caught by the disqualification and that comes out as a result of that definition.

Can I take your Honours next to Part VIII of the Act starting at page 122 dealing with -

KIRBY J: So Paris Hilton would now be disqualified, but last week for a short time she would have been entitled to vote?

MR MERKEL: Yes, your Honour, and she would have been entitled if she were in Australia and an Australian citizen to be standing here unburdened by the five-year point at least.

KIRBY J: I just wanted you to know that I follow these things.

—

Roach v Electoral Commissioner & Anor [2007] HCATrans 275 (12 June 2007).

What a guy.