ing ▁prov isions ▁could ▁accordingly ▁be ▁sever ed , ▁and ▁the ▁balance ▁of ▁the ▁system ▁use fully ▁remain ▁in ▁force . ▁ ▁As ▁to ▁the ▁question ▁of ▁whether ▁or ▁not ▁the ▁Court ▁should ▁exercise ▁the ▁power ▁v ested ▁in ▁it ▁by ▁section ▁ 9 8 ( 5 ) ▁of ▁the ▁Constitution , ▁so ▁as ▁to ▁enable ▁the ▁legisl ature ▁to ▁dev ise ▁an ▁ade qu ate ▁substitute ▁for ▁the ▁imprison ment ▁option , ▁it ▁was ▁held ▁that ▁it ▁was ▁by ▁no ▁means ▁so ▁that ▁the ▁system ▁was ▁dependent ▁upon ▁the ▁imprison ment ▁san ction ▁for ▁its ▁vi ability . ▁There ▁were ▁a ▁number ▁of ▁other ▁a ids ▁to ▁judgment - de bt ▁collection ▁in ▁the ▁system : ▁for ▁example , ▁property ▁attachment ▁and ▁g arn ishment ▁of ▁w ages . ▁In ▁any ▁event , ▁the ▁system ▁was ▁so ▁clearly ▁incons istent ▁with ▁the ▁right ▁to ▁freedom ▁protected ▁by ▁section ▁ 1 1 ( 1 ) ▁of ▁the ▁Constitution , ▁and ▁so ▁manifest ly ▁in def ens ible ▁under ▁section ▁ 3 3 ( 1 ) ▁of ▁the ▁Constitution , ▁that ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁war rant ▁for ▁its ▁ret ention , ▁even ▁tempor arily . ▁ ▁" Dra con ian ▁effects " ▁ ▁In ▁addition ▁to ▁conc urr ing ▁in ▁the ▁judgment ▁of ▁Krieg ler ▁J , ▁Did c ott ▁J ▁( L anga ▁J ▁conc urr ing ) ▁identified ▁" four ▁dra con ian ▁effects " ▁of ▁the ▁prov isions ▁in ▁issue ▁which ▁rendered ▁the ▁limitation ▁prov isions ▁of ▁section ▁ 3 3