Yanner v Eafon - The High Court's Next Opportunity to
|
|
- Britton Rich
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Yanner v Eafon - The High Court's Next Opportunity to Consider the Extinguishment of Native Title Joanne Segger B Econ (Qld), LLB Student, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland. In the recent case of Yanner v Eaton1 the High Court reaffirmed the common law doctrine of Native Title and clarified circumstances where a claim may be extinguished through the impact of a State statute. This case highlights the new analysis of rights and interests in land that is required, and the importance of the interpretation given to the plain words of a statutory in~trument.~ I. The Facts of Yanner v Eaton: Between the 31st of October and the 1st of December 1994 Mr Murrandoo Yanner (the appellant) used a traditional form of harpoon known as a '~ock'~ to catch two juvenile estuarine crocodiles in Cliffdale Creek in the Gulf of Carpentaria area of Queensland. The appellant and other members of his clan ate some of the crocodile meat. The appellant froze the rest of the meat and kept that frozen meat and the skins of the crocodiles at his home.4 As a result of these acts, the appellant was charged under s 54(l)(a) of the Fauna Conservation Act 1974 which provided that: A person shall not take, keep or attempt to take or keep fauna of any kind unless he is the holder of a licence, permit, certificate or other authority granted and issued under this Act. As the appellant was not the holder of any licence, permit, certificate or other authority he was charged with one count of taking fauna contrary to the Act.S The defence raised to this charge was that s 21 1 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) applied to this factual scenario. This section provides as follows: (1) Subsection (2) applies if: (a) the exercise or enjoyment of native title rights and interests in relation to land or waters consists of or includes carrying on a particular class of activity defined in subsection (3); and (b) a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory prohibits or restricts persons from canying on the class of activity other than in accordance with a licence, permit or other instrument granted or issued to them under the law; and (c) the law is not one that confers rights or interests only on, or for the benefit of, Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders. (2) If this subsection applies, the law does not prohibit or restrict the native title holders from carrying on the class of activity, or from gaining access to the land or waters for the purpose of carrying on the class of activity, where they do so: (a) for the purpose of satisfying their personal, domestic or non commercial communal needs; and (b) in exercise or enjoyment of their native title rights and interest (3) Each of the following is a separate 'class of activity' (a) hunting; (b) fishing; (c) gathering; 1 [I9991 HCA 53; (1999) 166 ALR Lane, P 'Native Title - The End of Property As We Know It?' (2000) 8 Australian Property LAW Journal 1 at (1999) 166 ALR 258 at (1999) 166 ALR 258 at 260; Neal, T 'Yanner v Eaton' (1999) 4(6) Native Title News 106 at (1999) 166 ALR 258 at 260.
2 7 76 Case Notes (d) a cultural or spiritual activity; (e) any other kind of activity prescribed for the purpose of this paragraph. II. The decision at first and second instance The Magistrate at first instance held that the appellant's clan has 'a connection with the area of land from which the crocodiles were taken' and that this connection had existed 'before the common law came into being in the colony of Queensland in 1823 and... thereafter continued'. He further held that it was a traditional custom of the clan to hunt juvenile crocodiles for food, and that the evidence suggested that the taking of juvenile rather than adult crocodiles had 'tribal totemic ~ i~cance and [was based on] spiritual belief. The magistrate therefore held that the appellant was not guilty of an offence and dismissed the ~harge.~ The effect of the Magistrate's finding was that the exercise or enjoyment of native title rights in relation to the land and waters from which the crocodiles were taken consisted of hunting and fishing. The Fauna Act prohibited those acts other than in accordance with a licence, permit, certificate or other authority. However, the Fauna Act did not prohibit or restrict native title holders from hunting or fishing or from gaining access to the land or waters for the purposes of satisfying their personal, domestic or non commercial communal needs and in the exercise or enjoyment of their native title rights and interest^.^ The informant in the Magistrates' Court proceedings applied for an order to review the Magistrates deci~ion.~ The application was made under s 209 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) for a review of the decision by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Court of Appeal (McPherson JA and Moyn~han J, Fitzgerald P dissenting) heldg that s 211(2) of the Native Title Act I993 (Cth)lo had no relevant operation, as the appellant's native title right or incident to hunt the said crocodiles had been extinguished by s 7(1) of the Fauna Act and therefore the threshold requirement in s 223(1)(c) of the Native Title Act, that the right was 'recognized by the common law of Australia' was not fulfilled.11 The Court of Appeal on this basis ordered that the order nisi be made absolute and that the Magistrate's order be set aside. The Court of Appeal further ordered that the matter be remitted to the Magistrates Court so that the matter could be trialed according to the law. From these orders the High Court granted special leave to appeal.12 Ill. The High Court's Decision (52) Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby and Hayne JJ in their joint judgment and Gurnmow J in a separate judgment allowed the appeal in this matter, with McHugh and Callinan JJ dissenting. All the Justices of the High Court in this case saw the major issue for determination as what interpretation should be given to s 7 of the Fauna Act. This provision stated that: (1) All fauna, save fauna taken or kept during an open season with respect to that fauna, is the property of the Crown and under the control of the Fauna Authority. (2) Liability at law shall not attach to the Crown by reason only of the vesting of fauna in the crown pursuant to this section. The respondents submitted that this section conferred rights on the Crown with respect to 6 (1999) 166 ALR 258 at Neal, T. 'Yanner v Eaton', (1999) 4(6) Native Title News 106 at Neal, T 'Yanner v Eaton', (1999) 4(6) Native Title News 106 at Eaton v Yanner; Ex parte Eaton (27 February 1998, unreported). 10 Hereinafter cited as the Native Title Act. 11 (1999) 166 ALR 258 at (1999) 166 ALR 258 at 261.
3 Case Notes 7 77 the fauna that were inconsistent with the native title rights and interests upon which the appellant relied. 1. The Judgment of Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby and Hayne JJ (Majority) The issue facing the Justices here was, what meaning should be given to 'property' in the context of the Fauna Act? Their Honours viewed property as a notional concept describing a legal interest or legal relationship, the content and intensity of which varies greatly according to context. The property interest in fauna vested in the Crown by s 7(1) is determined by construing the provision within the terms of the whole Act. It is evident that s 7(1) conferred less than full, beneficial or absolute ownership because the Crown's control and possession of wild animals is, as theorised at common law, inherently limited.13 Their Honours stated that: [tlhe 'property'14 which the Fauna Act and its predecessors vested in the Crown was no more than the aggregate of the various rights of control by the Executive that the legislation created. So far as now relevant those were rights to limit what fauna might be taken and how it might be taken,15 rights to possession of the fauna that has been reduced to possession,16 and rights to receive royalty in respect of fauna that was taken.17 The majority concluded that the cumulative result of these sections was to confer a right less than the full and beneficial ownership of the property. The use of the term 'property' merely conferred a regime forbidding the taking and keeping of property not the actual property in that fauna. l8 The issue for the court was then whether these restrictions on the rights of the appellant extinguished the native title that he may or may not possess. The Court was of the opinion that the hunting and fishing rights and interest upon which the appellant relied were rights and interests possessed under the traditional laws acknowledged, and the traditional customs observed, by the clan and tribe of which the appellant was a member. Therefore this was consistent with the s 223 of the Native Title Act. The result of this was that the appellants had a recognizable right in the land, at least until the passing of the Fauna Act under the common law.19 The majority found that regulating particular aspects of the usufructuary relationship with the traditional land does not sever the conne~tion.~~ Their Honours further concluded that s 211(2)~l assumes a conditional prohibition, like the one that confronted the appellant, which does not affect the existence of the native title rights and interests in relation to which the activity is pursued." In their Honours' opinion, the Fauna Act did not extinguish the rights and interest upon which the appellant relied. Accordingly by the operation of the Native Title Act and s 109 of the ~onstitution~~, the Fauna Act did not prohibit or restrict the appellant, as a native title holder, from hunting and fishing for juvenile crocodiles that he took for satisfying personal, domestic or non commercial communal needs. The appeal was allowed, negating the conviction. This judgment demonstrates the current mood of the High Court when dealing with Native Title claims. The majority by their interpretation appear to be willing to assess the Yanner v Earon (2000) 5 Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 47 at 48. (1999) 166 ALR 258 at ss 24, 24A, 25, 27, 30, 60 Fauna Conservation Act 1974 (Qld). ss 71(2), 83(3) Fauna Conservation Act 1974 (Qld). s 67 Fauna Conservation Act 1974 (Qld) (1999) 166 ALR 258 at 268. (1999) 166 ALR 258 at 268. Neal, T 'Yanner v Eaton' (1999) 4(6) Native Title News 106 at 107. Refer to the Facts of Yanner v Eaton. (1999) 166 ALX 258 at 270. Where a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the fonner shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
4 7 78 Case Notes statutes that are brought before them in totality, such that they will not construe imperative words without regards to the scheme of the act.= 2. The Judgment of Gmow J (Separate Majority Judgment) Justice Gummow offers an interpretation of the law in issue that is clear in both explanation and logic. The distinguishing feature of Gumrnow J's judgment is that his Honour offers a concise overview of the law with respect the content of common law native title and extinguishment of title. His Honour, like the majority, saw the key issue as one of an interpretation of s 7(1). Gurnrnow J saw the use of the term 'property' as an aggregate relation between the 'Crown' and 'fauna'. Utilizing the common law notions of property in animals in order to assess the liabiity of the Crown under the Act, liability at common law for damage caused by wild animals arises upon the taking or taming of the animals. His Honour found that section 7(2) immunized the Crown from that liability, indicating that, under the Fauna Act, the Crown acquired property in fauna only when those common law obligations would have otherwise operated. This limited property in fauna conditioned on 'taking' or 'keeping' is confiied by the exception within s 7(1) whereby the Crown does not have property in fauna 'taken or kept during an open season'.25 The result was that the section did not confer an absolute property right on the Crown but merely a right to regulate the activities of peoples of the state.26 The issue was whether this conferral of rights meant that the right claimed by the appellants was extinguished. Gummow J considered the decision of the High Court in Wig7 where it was held that native title rights would be extinguished where they are inconsistent with the statutory rightsf8 The question was therefore, according to Gumrnow J, whether the statutory right necessarily curtails the exercise of the native title right such that the conclusion of abrogation is compelled, or whether to some extent the title survives, or whether there is no inconsistency at all. Indeed, statute may regulate the exercise of the native title rights without in any degree abrogating it. Therefore the issue was whether the creation of certain statutory rights, conditioned upon the exercise of power conferred by the Fauna Act abrogated the exercise of the native title right or incident to hunt. Gummow J found that the legislative regulation that required an indigenous person to obtain a pennit under the Fauna Act in order to exercise the privilege to hunt did not abrogate the native title right. Rather, the regulation was consistent with the continued existence of that right.29 Gumrnow concluded that the appellant's conduct was recognized by the common law within the meaning of s 223(1)(c). As a result, s 211 applied and saved the exercise of that right from being an offence against s 54(l)(a) of the Fauna Act The dissenting opinions - McHugh and Callinan JJ McHugh and Callinan JJ found, in separate judgments, that the term 'property' in s 7 of the Fauna Act had the effect of extinguishing native title. McHugh J saw the use of the ordinary natural meaning of the term as a convenient method of statutory interpretation. The result was that 'property' should mean more than the residue of control over fauna, which the Crown has after others have carved out their entitlements to take and keep fauna 24 As will be demonstrated with the dissenting opinions in this case, such a literal construction would result in the severe consequence of an extinguishment of a pre-existing native title claim. 25 Yanner v Eaton (2000) 5 Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 47 at (1999) at Wik v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR (1999) 166 ALR 258 at (1999) 166 ALR 258 at (1999) 166 ALR 258 at Yanner v Eaton (2000) 5 Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 47 at 48.
5 Case Notes pursuant to a licence granted by or under the Act. Property in fauna is and always remains in the Crown until it disposes of it or a person acting in accordance with the Act puts an end to the Crown's property in particular fauna. This is not degraded by the exception found in s 7, according to McHugh J, because ~ ~ if the Crown obtains no property in fauna until it is taken, killed or appropriated, such an interpretation would deny the plain words of s 7(1)." Both Justices relied on the High Court's previous decision in Walden v ~askp as authority for the proposition that, since its enactment, s 7 has operated to vest property in fauna in the Crown and any right of Aborigines to take and keep fauna had been eliminated. The issue was therefore whether the property in the crocodiles that is vested in the Crown is so inconsistent with any native title right as to extinguish that right?35 Callinan J36 concluded that the evidence pointed inexorably to a direct collision between the custom or right of taking and eating crocodiles and the ownership of them by the State of Queensland. This collision is to such an extent that the custom or right which may be an aspect or incident of native title enjoyed by the people, of whom the appellant was one, has been extinguished by the Act under which the appellant was charged. The basic premise underlying this judgment was that the term 'property' should be interpreted as simply that.37 IV. Conclusion The majority judgments offer authority for the notion that the activities of fishing and hunting are grounds for a viable native title claim, and that such a claim is not extinguished through the operation of the Fauna Act. This decision highlights the new analysis of rights and interests in land that is required as a result of recognizing rights derived from traditional indigenous connections with the land and water. In order to determine the nature and content of rights in real property in Australia, it is now necessary to approach the question without preconceptions about the intention with which certain words (particularly those with broad and general meanings) are used. The minority utilized a literal approach to the term property, whereas the majority required a more detailed analysis of the purpose and function of the statutory language.38 It can be said that statutory interpretation was of critical importance for the outcome of this case. It was the essential difference between a viable claim of Native title and the extinguishment of such a right. 32 (1999) 166 ALR 258 at (1999) 166 ALR 258 at (1987) 163 CLR (1999) 166 ALR 258 at McHugh J agrees with his reasons given (1 999) 166 ALR 258 at Yanner v Eaton (2000) 5 Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 47 at Lane, P. 'Native Title - The End of Property As We Know It?' (2000) 8 Australian Property Law Journal 1 at 17.
MINERALS, MINING LEASES AND NATIVE TITLE
MINERALS, MINING LEASES AND NATIVE TITLE Ken Jagger * Complete extinguishment by legislation of any native title right to minerals and petroleum is considered, along with the partial extinguishment of
More informationTHE FIRST CONTESTED MAINLAND NATIVE TITLE DETERMINATION
(2002) 21 AMPLJ Risk v Northern Territory of Australia 187 land to form part of that Aboriginal land, or for a "buffer zone" as the Woodward Royal Commission had recommended. Rather, provision was made,
More informationARTICLES NATIVE TITLE AFTER WARD: A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE MINING AND PETROLEUM INDUSTRIES. Doug Young *
ARTICLES NATIVE TITLE AFTER WARD: A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE MINING AND PETROLEUM INDUSTRIES Doug Young * A comprehensive statement of the findings of the High Court in Ward and the
More informationQUEENSLAND V CONGOO: THE CONFUSED RE- EMERGENCE OF A RATIONALE OF EQUALITY?
QUEENSLAND V CONGOO: THE CONFUSED RE- EMERGENCE OF A RATIONALE OF EQUALITY? ZOE BUSH* In State of Queensland v Congoo [2015] HCA 17 (13 May 2015), the High Court applied principles of extinguishment to
More informationPASTORAL AND GRAZING LEASES AND NATIVE TITLE
PASTORAL AND GRAZING LEASES AND NATIVE TITLE Graham Hiley QC The background jurisprudence in Mabo No 2, Wik and the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 concerning the extinguishment of native title on leases,
More informationROBERTS & ANOR v BASS
Case notes 257 ROBERTS & ANOR v BASS In Roberts v Bass' the High Court considered the balance between freedom of expression in political and governmental matters, and defamatory publication during an election
More informationComment on Native Title Amendment Bill 2012 Exposure Draft. October 2012 CONTACT DETAILS
Comment on Native Title Amendment Bill 2012 Exposure Draft October 2012 CONTACT DETAILS Jacqueline Phillips National Director Email: Jacqui@antar.org.au Phone: (02) 9280 0060 Fax: (02) 9280 0061 www.antar.org.au
More informationNATIVE TITLE AND THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY UNDER THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION
M.U.L.R- Brennan - final proof (pre-press completed).doc Native Title printed 19/05/04 at 21:14 page 28 of 52 NATIVE TITLE AND THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY UNDER THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION SEAN BRENNAN
More informationDEVELOPMENTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE CONTEXT OF IMMIGRATION CASES. A Comment Prepared for the Judicial Conference of Australia's Colloquium 2003
DEVELOPMENTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE CONTEXT OF IMMIGRATION CASES A Comment Prepared for the Judicial Conference of Australia's Colloquium 2003 DARWIN - 30 MAY 2003 John Basten QC Dr Crock has provided
More informationIndigenous management of marine turtle and dugong: legal and policy opportunities and impediments
Indigenous management of marine turtle and dugong: legal and policy opportunities and impediments A Consultancy Report to the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance by Jann Crase
More informationEXECUTIVE DETENTION: A LAW UNTO ITSELF? A CASE STUDY OF AL-KATEB V GODWIN
30877 NOTRE DAME - BOYLE (7):30877 NOTRE DAME - BOYLE (7) 6/07/09 9:17 AM Page 119 EXECUTIVE DETENTION: A LAW UNTO ITSELF? A CASE STUDY OF AL-KATEB V GODWIN Cameron Boyle* I INTRODUCTION The detention
More informationSUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 20
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 195 ALR 24 The text on pages 893-94 sets out s 474 of the Migration Act, as amended in 2001 in the wake of the Tampa controversy (see Chapter 12); and also refers
More informationImmigration Law Conference February 2017 Panel discussion Judicial Review: Emerging Trends & Themes
Immigration Law Conference February 2017 Panel discussion Brenda Tronson Barrister Level 22 Chambers btronson@level22.com.au 02 9151 2212 Unreasonableness In December, Bromberg J delivered judgment in
More informationNATIVE TITLE RIGHTS TO EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION, USE AND ENJOYMENT AND THE YINDJIBARNDI
92 NATIVE TITLE RIGHTS TO EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION, USE AND ENJOYMENT AND THE YINDJIBARNDI RICHARD BARTLETT* I THE YINDJIBARNDI AND FORTESCUE METALS The recent trial court determination of the rights of the
More informationTopic 10: Implied Political Freedoms
Topic 10: Implied Political Freedoms Implied Freedom of Political Communication P will challenge the validity of (section/act) on the grounds that it breaches the implied freedom of political communication
More informationNational Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 AMANDA NGO
National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 AMANDA NGO TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF THE LAW... 2 Step 1: Nomination...2 Step 2: Approval...3 Step 3: Selection of a site...3 Step 4: Acquisition or extinguishment
More informationr 28. CASE NOTES Mabo v State of Queensland (1992) 66ALJR408 FEDERAL Native Title Recognized By High Court Linda Pearson Macquarie University Sydney
r 28. CASE NOTES FEDERAL Native Title Recognized By High Court Mabo v State of Queensland (1992) 66ALJR408 The recognition of native title by the full Court of the High Court of Australia in Mabo v Queensland
More informationGriffith University v Tang: Review of University Decisions Made Under an Enactment
Griffith University v Tang: Review of University Decisions Made Under an Enactment MELISSA GANGEMI* 1. Introduction In Griffith University v Tang, 1 the court was presented with the quandary of determining
More informationJOAN MONICA MALONEY v THE QUEEN [2013] HCA 28
CASENOTE: JOAN MONICA MALONEY v THE QUEEN [2013] HCA 28 by Simon Rice Introduction In Joan Monica Maloney v The Queen ( Maloney ), the High Court decided that laws that prohibit an Indigenous person from
More informationChapter 154. Fauna (Protection and Control) Act Certified on: / /20.
Chapter 154. Fauna (Protection and Control) Act 1966. Certified on: / /20. INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA. Chapter 154. Fauna (Protection and Control) Act 1966. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. PART I
More informationHistory of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advocacy
History of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advocacy Aboriginal Tent Embassy 1972 Plan for Land Rights & Sovereignty: Control of NT as a State within the Commonwealth of Australia; Parliament of NT
More informationHow to determine error in administrative decisions A cheat s guide Paper given to law firms What is judicial review?
How to determine error in administrative decisions A cheat s guide Paper given to law firms 2014 Cameron Jackson Second Floor Selborne Chambers Ph 9223 0925 cjackson@selbornechambers.com.au What is judicial
More informationMobil Oil Australia Pty Limited Plaintiff; and The State of Victoria and Another Defendants. 211 CLR 1, [2002] HCA 27) [2002] HCA 27
Constitutional Law - State Parliament - Powers - Legislative scheme for representative actions - Whether beyond territorial competence of State Parliament - Whether invalid conferral of nonjudicial power
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZJRU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 315 MIGRATION application for protection visa claim that appellant has well-founded fear of being persecuted for membership
More informationLIMITS TO STATE PARLIAMENTARY POWER AND THE PROTECTION OF JUDICIAL INTEGRITY: A PRINCIPLED APPROACH?
129 LIMITS TO STATE PARLIAMENTARY POWER AND THE PROTECTION OF JUDICIAL INTEGRITY: A PRINCIPLED APPROACH? SIMON KOZLINA * AND FRANCOIS BRUN ** Case citation; Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181;
More informationA Law Librarian's Guide Through the Mabo Maze
A Law Librarian's Guide Through the Mabo Maze Anne Twomey Parliamentary Research Service Parliamentary Library, Canberra Introduction This article is a guide through the material which relates to the Mabo
More informationTAJJOUR V NEW SOUTH WALES, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, AND THE HIGH COURT S UNEVEN EMBRACE OF PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW
TAJJOUR V NEW SOUTH WALES, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, AND THE HIGH COURT S UNEVEN EMBRACE OF PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW DR MURRAY WESSON * I INTRODUCTION In Tajjour v New South Wales, 1 the High Court considered
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Sittczenko; ex parte Cth DPP [2005] QCA 461 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: CA No 221 of 2005 DC No 405 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: R v SITTCZENKO, Arkady
More informationTHE IMPACT OF COLEMAN V POWER ON THE POLICING, DEFENCE AND SENTENCING OF PUBLIC NUISANCE CASES IN QUEENSLAND
M.U.L.R- 06_Walsh_(prepress_complete_fourth_proof).doc Title of Article printed 5 March 2007 at 6.51.26 PM page 191 of 20 THE IMPACT OF COLEMAN V POWER ON THE POLICING, DEFENCE AND SENTENCING OF PUBLIC
More informationChapter Two. Flights of Fancy: The Implied Freedom of Political Communication 20 Years On. Michael Sexton
Chapter Two Flights of Fancy: The Implied Freedom of Political Communication 20 Years On Michael Sexton The implied freedom of political communication is something of a case study for the discovery and
More informationANALYSING A CASE 4 DEFINITIONS 5 THE FEDERAL HIERARCHY OF AUSTRALIA 6 INTRODUCTION TO LEGISLATION 7
Table of Contents ANALYSING A CASE 4 DEFINITIONS 5 THE FEDERAL HIERARCHY OF AUSTRALIA 6 INTRODUCTION TO LEGISLATION 7 PRINCIPLES IN RELATION TO STATUTES AND SUBORDINATE LAWS 7 MAKING STATUTES: THE PROCESS
More informationAUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW NEWS
AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW NEWS NEW SOUTH WALES SENTENCING PRINCIPLES OF TOTALITY" AND "EVENHANDEDNESS" CamillerVs Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority Unreported, Court of Criminal
More informationLIMITATIONS ON EXECUTIVE POWER FOLLOWING WILLIAMS V COMMONWEALTH
LIMITATIONS ON EXECUTIVE POWER FOLLOWING WILLIAMS V COMMONWEALTH ERIK SDOBER * The recent High Court decision of Williams v Commonwealth was significant in delineating limitations on Federal Executive
More informationAboriginal Heritage Act 2006
TABLE OF PROVISIONS Section Page PART 1 PRELIMINARY 1 1. Purpose 1 2. Commencement 1 3. Objectives 2 4. Definitions 3 5. What is an Aboriginal place? 11 6. Who is a native title party for an area? 12 7.
More informationREMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND SECTION 33 OF THE ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901
REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND SECTION 33 OF THE ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 Dennis Pearce* The recent decision of the Federal Court in Nicholson-Brown v Jennings 1 was concerned with the suspension and subsequent
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Nadao Stott v Lyons and Stott (as executors) [2007] QSC 087 PARTIES: NADAO STOTT (under Part IV, sections 40-44, Succession Act 1981) (applicant) AND FILE NO/S: BS
More informationTHEOPHANOUS v HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES LTD* STEPHENS v WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD*
THEOPHANOUS v HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES LTD* STEPHENS v WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD* Introduction On 12 October 1994 the High Court handed down its judgments in the cases of Theophanous v Herald & Weekly
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v WALU [2006] FCA 657 MIGRATION protection visas well-founded fear of persecution claimed to be based on conscientious
More informationCommonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005
Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 Act No. 145 of 2005 as amended This compilation was prepared on 15 December 2006 taking into account amendments up to Act No. 161 of 2006 The text of
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Baden-Clay [2013] QSC 351 PARTIES: THE QUEEN (Applicant) FILE NO/S: 467 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: v GERARD ROBERT BADEN-CLAY (Respondent)
More informationStanford is the Full Court in reverse or just changing gears?
PROPERTY Stanford is the Full Court in reverse or just changing gears? JACKY CAMPBELL Stanford - Is the Full Court in reverse or just changing gears? Jacky Campbell Forte Family Lawyers The Full Court
More informationA CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT OF AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP
Genevieve Ebbeck * A CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT OF AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ABSTRACT It is argued in this paper that Australian citizenship may be a constitutional, and not merely statutory, concept. Australian
More informationQueensland DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (FAMILY PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT 1992
Queensland DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (FAMILY PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT 1992 Act No. 46 of 1992 Queensland DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (FAMILY PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT 1992 Section TABLE OF PROVISIONS Page 1 Short title.....................................................
More informationBy Anne Twomey. See further: A Twomey, An obituary for s 25 of the Constitution (2012) 23 PLR
1 INDIGENOUS CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES UNDERLYING THE DEVELOPMENT OF REFERENDUM PROPOSALS By Anne Twomey There are two main aims driving Indigenous constitutional recognition.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Trustee of the Property of Geoffrey Mahony and Deborah Mahony & Ors v McElroy & Ors [2003] QCA 208 THE TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF GEOFFREY REX MAHONY & DEBORAH
More informationTraditional Owner Settlement Act 2010
Authorised Version No. 002 Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 Authorised Version incorporating amendments as at 22 June 2011 Section TABLE OF PROVISIONS Page PART 1 PRELIMINARY 2 1 Purposes 2 2 Commencement
More informationSmooth sailing for Australia's automatic forfeiture of foreign fishing vessels
University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Law - Papers (Archive) Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts 2005 Smooth sailing for Australia's automatic forfeiture of foreign fishing vessels Warwick
More informationMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Fathia Mohammed Yusuf
Bond University epublications@bond High Court Review Faculty of Law 1-1-2000 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Fathia Mohammed Yusuf Susan Kneebone Follow this and additional works at:
More informationCoe v Commonwealth [1993] HCA 42; (1993) 68 ALJR 110; (1993) 118 ALR 193 (17 August 1993) HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Coe v Commonwealth [1993] HCA 42; (1993) 68 ALJR 110; (1993) 118 ALR 193 (17 August 1993) HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA ISABEL COE ON BEHALF OF THE WIRADJURI TRIBE v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and STATE
More informationJudicial Review. The issue is whether the decision was made under Commonwealth or State law and which court has jurisdiction.
Judicial Review Jurisdiction The issue is whether the decision was made under Commonwealth or State law and which court has jurisdiction. Federal decisions must go to the Federal courts and State (and
More informationFrom 1883 to the early 1970 s an estimated 100,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were forcibly taken from their families.
The Stolen Generation An overview The history for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people since first contact with Europeans has been one of killings and of dispossession from their lands at the hands
More informationIntroduction 2. Common Law 2. Common Law versus Legislation 5. How to Find and Understand Law 6. Legal Resources 8.
Changing Your Name CHAPTER CONTENTS Introduction 2 Common Law 2 Common Law versus Legislation 5 How to Find and Understand Law 6 Legal Resources 8 Legal Notices 10 2016 Caxton Legal Centre Inc. queenslandlawhandbook.org.au
More informationCriminal Organisation Control Legislation and Cases
Criminal Organisation Control Legislation and Cases 2008-2013 Contents Background...2 Suggested Reading...2 Legislation and Case law By Year...3 Legislation and Case Law By State...4 Amendments to Crime
More informationDefining native title - Indigenous cultural knowledge and the Native Title Act
University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Law - Papers (Archive) Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts 2003 Defining native title - Indigenous cultural knowledge and the Native Title Act E.
More informationPublic Authorities and Private Individuals - What Difference?: Romeo v Consemtion Commission of the
Public Authorities and Private Individuals - What Difference?: Romeo v Consemtion Commission of the Northern Territory Susan Barton BALLB student, The University of Queensland Once upon a time public authorities
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Till v Johns [2004] QCA 451 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: CA No 209 of 2004 DC No 1 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: PETER TILL (applicant/applicant) v ANTHONY
More informationMENTAL HEALTH IN THE LOCAL COURT
MENTAL HEALTH IN THE LOCAL COURT OVERVIEW A consequence of the de-institutionalisation of mental health care is that individuals with mental health problems have come under increasing contact with the
More informationTHE NATIONAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA (NEW SOUTH WALES) ACT. Act No. 10, 1960.
THE NATIONAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA (NEW SOUTH WALES) ACT. Act No. 10, 1960. An Act to provide for the establishment and incorporation of a body to be called " The National Trust of Australia (New South Wales)";
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Martens v Stokes & Anor [2012] QCA 36 PARTIES: FREDERICK ARTHUR MARTENS (appellant) v TANIA ANN STOKES (first respondent) COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (second respondent)
More informationWorking with Children Legislation (Indigenous Communities) Amendment Bill 2017
26 th April 2016 Submission to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee Working with Children Legislation (Indigenous Communities) Amendment Bill 2017 18 August 2017 1 CONTENTS Part 1: Introduction
More informationSTATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND NATIVE TITLE EXTINGUISHMENT: EXPANDING CONSTRUCTIONAL CHOICES I INTRODUCTION
P The P P 2015 Statutory Interpretation and Native Title Extinguishment 587 STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND NATIVE TITLE EXTINGUISHMENT: EXPANDING CONSTRUCTIONAL CHOICES SAMANTHA HEPBURNP1047F* I INTRODUCTION
More informationRe: Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2014
The Research Director Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 By email: lacsc@parliament.qld.gov.au 6 June 2014 Dear Colleague, Re: Criminal Law Amendment
More informationThe recent High Court decision of
Malice, Qualified Privilege and Lange In this article Glen. Sauer examines the High Court s decision in Roberts v Bass on the issue of malice, and how it applies to the defamation defence of qualified
More informationProvincial Jurisdiction After Delgamuukw
2.1 ABORIGINAL TITLE UPDATE Provincial Jurisdiction After Delgamuukw These materials were prepared by Albert C. Peeling of Azevedo & Peeling, Vancouver, B.C. for Continuing Legal Education, March, 1998.
More informationNATIVE TITLE & THE NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL ROBERT POWRIE PRACTICE DIRECTOR, NNTT.
NATIVE TITLE & THE NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL ROBERT POWRIE PRACTICE DIRECTOR, NNTT. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND DISCLAIMER We acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet We pay our respects
More informationAl-Kateb, Al Khafaji, Behrooz and Re Woolley. Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 29 Al-Kateb, Al Khafaji, Behrooz and Re Woolley Mr Ahmed Al-Kateb arrived in Australia by boat in December 2000 without a passport or visa. He was taken into detention under the Migration
More informationSir Ninian Stephen Annual Lecture Noel Pearson. Law School University of Newcastle 17 March 2003
THE HIGH COURT S ABANDONMENT OF THE TIME-HONOURED METHODOLOGY OF THE COMMON LAW IN ITS INTERPRETATION OF NATIVE TITLE IN MIRRIUWUNG GAJERRONG AND YORTA YORTA Sir Ninian Stephen Annual Lecture 2003 Noel
More informationProfiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working directors
Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working directors Author: Tim Wardell Special Counsel Edwards Michael Lawyers Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working
More informationThe entrenched minimum provision of judicial review and the rule of law
The entrenched minimum provision of judicial review and the rule of law Leighton McDonald * In Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476, the High Court held that s 75(v) of the Constitution
More informationChildren (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997 No 78
New South Wales Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997 No 78 Contents Part 1 Preliminary 1 Name of Act 2 Commencement 3 Definitions 4 Operation of Act 5 Notes Page Part 2 Parental responsibility
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Maclag (No 11) P/L & Anor v Chantay Too P/L (No 2) [2009] QSC 299 PARTIES: MACLAG (NO 11) PTY LTD ACN 010 611 631 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BURNS FAMILY TRUST (first plaintiff)
More informationBEYOND SYMBOLISM: ABORIGINAL SOVEREIGNTY AND NATIVE TITLE I. INTRODUCTION
BEYOND SYMBOLISM: ABORIGINAL SOVEREIGNTY AND NATIVE TITLE FRANCESCA DOMINELLO* I. INTRODUCTION In Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria 1 and Western Australia v Ward, 2 the High Court
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: No 5582 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Australian Society of Ophthalmologists & Anor v Optometry Board of Australia [2013] QSC
More informationWESTERN AUSTRALIA. No. 67 of AN ACT to amend the Fauna Conservation Act, [Assented to 7th November, 1975.]
WESTERN AUSTRALIA. FAUNA CONSERVATION. No. 67 of 1975. AN ACT to amend the Fauna Conservation Act, 1950-1970. [Assented to 7th November, 1975.] E it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent B Majesty, by
More informationWho will guard the guardians? : Assessing the High Court s role of constitutional review. T Souris. Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University
Who will guard the guardians? : Assessing the High Court s role of constitutional review Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University Abstract The High Court of Australia has the power to invalidate Commonwealth
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: The Proprietors Rosebank GTP 3033 v Locke & Anor [2016] QCA 192 PARTIES: THE PROPRIETORS ROSEBANK GTP 3033 (appellant) v JEREMY LOCKE (first respondent) CAMBRIDGE
More informationNew South Wales v Lepore Samin v Queensland Rich v Queensland
Samin v Queensland Rich v Queensland (2003) 195 ALR 412; [2003] HCA 4 (High Court of Australia) (relevant to Chapter 12, under headings Course of Employment on p 379, and Non-Delegable Duties on p 386)
More informationTOPIC 2: Jurisdiction to Conduct Judicial Review
~~~~~ TOPIC 2: Jurisdiction to Conduct Judicial Review Introduction There are two avenues to seek judicial review of a Commonwealth decision: o Section 75(v) of the Constitution (or s 39B Judiciary Act);
More informationTHE RESURGENCE OF THE KABLE PRINCIPLE: INTERNATIONAL FINANCE TRUST COMPANY
THE RESURGENCE OF THE KABLE PRINCIPLE: INTERNATIONAL FINANCE TRUST COMPANY AYOWANDE A MCCUNN I. INTRODUCTION In International Finance Trust Company Limited v New South Wales Crime Commission 1 the High
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: O Keefe & Ors v Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service [2016] QCA 205 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE O KEEFE (first appellant) NATHAN IRWIN (second appellant)
More informationCASE NOTE PROSPER THE GOVERNMENT, SUFFER THE PRACTITIONER: THE GRAHAM BARCLAY OYSTERS LITIGATION INTRODUCTION
2003 Case Note: Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan 727 CASE NOTE PROSPER THE GOVERNMENT, SUFFER THE PRACTITIONER: THE GRAHAM BARCLAY OYSTERS LITIGATION I INTRODUCTION The Graham Barclay Oysters litigation
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Elbe Shipping SA v Giant Marine Shipping SA [2007] FCA 1000 CORRIGENDUM ELBE SHIPPING SA v GIANT MARINE SHIPPING SA, BEING THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP GLOBAL PEACE AND ADSTEAM HARBOUR
More informationExcluding Admissions
Excluding Admissions (Handout) Arjun Chhabra, Solicitor Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Limited Central South Eastern Region Conference Saturday 2 May 2015 Purpose My talk is on excluding admissions
More informationWildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill
Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill 2nd Groupings of Amendments for Stage 2 This document provides procedural information which will assist in preparing for and following proceedings on the
More informationInterpretation of Delegated Legislation
Interpretation of Delegated Legislation Matt Black Barrister-at-Law A seminar paper prepared for the Legalwise seminar Administrative Law: Statutory Interpretation and Judicial Review 22 November 2017
More informationTake the example of a witness who gives identification evidence. French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ stated at [50]:
Implications of IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14 Stephen Odgers The High Court has determined (by a 4:3 majority) that a trial judge, in assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of a number
More informationS V THE QUEEN [VOL. 21 RICHARD HOOKER*
[VOL. 21 RICHARD HOOKER* Difficulties commonly arise for the Crown in the prosecution of assault cases, particularly of a sexual nature, where the complainant is unable to specify particular acts of the
More informationTopic 3: Characterisation: Subject Matter Powers Revision of previous class head of power any limitation or prohibition express or implied
Topic 3: Characterisation: Subject Matter Powers Revision of previous class The main question is: whether a law is constitutional valid or not? ---If it is Cth law, is it supported by a head of power?
More informationNative title and the claim process: an overview
Native title and the claim process: an overview Today s Agenda NTA; the beginnings of Native Title Native Title Claims Process What is a future act? Agreement making Future Act Determinations Expedited
More informationThe Third Branch of Government The Constitutional Position of the Courts of Western Australia
The Third Branch of Government The Constitutional Position of the Courts of Western Australia Address by The Honourable Wayne Martin AC Chief Justice of Western Australia Constitutional Centre of WA 20
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 12888 of 2008 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Taylor v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [2011] QSC 8 SYLVIA PAMELA TAYLOR (appellant)
More informationThe Role ADR plays in native title from an Indigenous service provider perspective
The Role ADR plays in native title from an Indigenous service provider perspective Presented by Kevin Smith Chief Executive Officer This presentation will address the following: 1. Historical background
More informationBefore the High Court: Politics, Police and Proportionality - An Opportunity to Explore the Large Test: Coleman v Power
University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Law - Papers (Archive) Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts 2003 Before the High Court: Politics, Police and Proportionality - An Opportunity to Explore
More informationMLDRIN ECHUCA DECLARATION
MLDRIN ECHUCA DECLARATION Preamble RECOGNISING and REAFFIRMING that each of the Indigenous Nations represented within Murray and Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations is and has been since time immemorial
More informationA PROGRESSIVE COURT AND A BALANCING TEST: ROWE V ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER [2010] HCA 46
14 UWSLR 119 A PROGRESSIVE COURT AND A BALANCING TEST: ROWE V ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER [2010] HCA 46 RUTH GREENWOOD * I. INTRODUCTION Rowe v Electoral Commissioner 1 ( Rowe ) is a case about the legislative
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 339 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Cant v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] QSC 62 CRAIG CANT (applicant) v COMMONWEALTH
More informationHIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ BBH APPLICANT AND THE QUEEN RESPONDENT BBH v The Queen [2012] HCA 9 28 March 2012 B76/2010 ORDER 1. Application for
More informationAboriginal Heritage Act 2006
Section Version No. 021 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Version incorporating amendments as at 28 February 2017 TABLE OF PROVISIONS Page Part 1 Preliminary 1 1 Purposes 1 2 Commencement 1 3 Objectives 2 4
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Wuthathi People #2 v State of Queensland [2015] FCA 380 Citation: Wuthathi People #2 v State of Queensland [2015] FCA 380 Parties: JOHNSON CHIPPENDALE, MOIRA MACUMBOY, RICHARD
More informationLand rights and native title
Land rights and native title When Gough Whitlam became Prime Minister in 1972, one of his main promises was the issue of land rights for Indigenous Australians. An inquiry, headed by Justice Woodward,
More information