Definition: Superior court in hierarchy Directly established Original jurisdiction Appellant jurisdiction Interpret & apply Constitution establishes, outlines & powers of judicature Starting at section 71… -judicial power of commonwealth vested in supreme court, to be called HC of Aus., the HC consist of a CJ, many other justices, not less than 2, as parliament prescribes.
Definition: Matters originally heard Actual original jurisdiction, in regard to ‘All Matters’(s75): -Treaty -Consuls or other representatives -Person suing/being sued, is a party -Between states, residents or both -Writ of mandamus, prohibition, injunction, sought against an officer
Conferral creates some problems: -Immigration related decisions, against an officer Potential original jurisdiction, parliament may confer in relation to (s76): -Arising the constitution, or interpretation -Arising under any laws made -Admiralty & maritime -Relating subject-matter, laws of different states
Defined under section 73 High court hear appeals from supreme, Any federal court or court exercising, Decisions made by 1 or more justices S73 allows appellant to be limited, such exceptions & subject, regulations Parliament a large limitation, s35A of Judiciary Act 1903 Requires “special leave” Special leave, only granted, a question of law, public importance Or involves conflict, in interest admin of justice While the HC is final court, cannot be general
Intro: Many do not see phases, trends Scholars attempted, characterise eras 1903 HC major impacts, on federal division of powers Decisions divided into historical phases: -Phase 1:1903-1920 -Phase 2:1920-1942 -Phase 3:1942-1970 -Phase 4:1970-1996 -Phase 5:Contemporary approaches
Meant major theme, understand “intent”/desire of founders sentiments. States rights upheld, assistance US supreme. 3 original justices, HC applied presumptions, not found in text, derived by implication, federal scheme, interpretation. Doctrine of implied immunities, doctrine reserve state powers, implied prohibitions 1903-1920, court interpreted constitution, favour of states, residual powers. Primarily, first 3 justices, part in framing. Landmark cases -D’Emden’s Case (1904) -Peterwald’s Case (1904)
Meant judicial emphasis, upon actual literal meaning, of words, looking back, what the founders may/may not founded. Engineers’ case- -Dispute between, Amalgamated society & engineering & sawmilling, by WA. -Commonwealth sought legislate, under s51 had power make laws, state based, dispute extended beyond. -HC agreed, broader interpretation, industrial powers, ruling industrial law apply WA, & by implication other states.
Literalist interpretation saw cases, both ways, no major extension. 1945-late 1960s, court returned to policy, protecting states rights, maintaining federalism, mixed results. Period essentially neutral for HC. Landmark Cases- -Noarlunga Meat Case (1954) -State Banking Case (1947) -Communist Party Case (1951)
Meant the emphasis judicial interpretation, placed upon application of Const., contemporary society. Since 1970 HC given broader interpretation, commonwealth powers. Landmark Cases- -Bass Strait Pipeline Case (1983) -Crayfish Case (1988)
Considerable change of personnel in 1990s. Decisions more legalist than activist. HC more cautious approach, extent of individual rights protected. ‘Implied rights’ redefined, specific limits on gov. powers. Rejected any notion, const contained extensive rights, could render other statutes. Landmark Case- -Hindmarsh (1998)
Tasmania attempted to build the Franklin Dam which would flood the south west and Gordon rivers The labor party promised to stop the dam and as a result got voted in The High court then rejected the challenge to stop the construction The Justices found the commonwealths claim that this region is covered by world heritage a valid use of external powers which gave federal government power to stop the construction
Crayfish brought in from Victoria were undersized in Tasmania's laws Court created legal precedent by overturning any state or commonwealth act. This precedent increased power to regulate business and engage in commercial activity.
Australian capital television limited challenged the commonwealths political broadcasts and disclosures act. Seen as unconstitutional as we are representative government This was significant as it was the first time the court had identified political freedoms or rights
In 1992, the Mabo case occurred which formed the basis of the precedent of the native title rights for indigenous people. Australia’s first legal principle for this was terra nullius, which meant that the land was vacant, allowing for the creation of new laws Court found terra nullius inconsistent with current values of society and other British settlements
Dr Andrew Theophanous, a member of parliament sued the Herald and the Weekly Times for alleged defamation The High court, basing its decision on the responsible government which is stated on the constitution found that this claim was invalid. The reason being is that freedom of speech about the government is an implied right