DOCSLIB.ORG

High Court of Australia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
High Court of Australia HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ VERA MOMCILOVIC APPELLANT AND THE QUEEN & ORS RESPONDENTS Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 8 September 2011 M134/2010 ORDER 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside paragraphs 1-5 of the order of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria dated 25 March 2010, and in their place order that: (a) the appellant have leave to appeal against her conviction; (b) the appeal be allowed; (c) the appellant's conviction be quashed and sentence set aside; and (d) a new trial be had. 3. The second respondent pay two-thirds of the costs of the appellant in this Court. On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria Representation M J Croucher and K L Walker with C A Boston for the appellant (instructed by Melasecca, Kelly & Zayler) G J C Silbert SC with B L Sonnet and C W Beale for the first respondent (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Vic)) S G E McLeish SC, Solicitor-General for the State of Victoria with J M Davidson and A M Dinelli for the second respondent (instructed by Victorian Government Solicitor) S P Donaghue with E M Nekvapil for the third respondent (instructed by Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission) Interveners S J Gageler SC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth with R M Doyle SC and A D Pound intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor) at the hearing on 8, 9 and 10 February 2011 H C Burmester QC with R M Doyle SC and A D Pound intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor) at the hearing on 7 June 2011 R J Meadows QC, Solicitor-General for the State of Western Australia and R M Mitchell SC with C L Conley intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia (instructed by State Solicitor (WA)) M G Sexton SC, Solicitor-General for the State of New South Wales and K M Richardson intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales (instructed by Crown Solicitor (NSW)) at the hearing on 8, 9 and 10 February 2011 M G Sexton SC, Solicitor-General for the State of New South Wales with M L Rabsch intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales (instructed by Crown Solicitor (NSW)) at the hearing on 7 June 2011 G L Sealy SC, Solicitor-General for the State of Tasmania with S Gates intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania (instructed by Crown Solicitor for Tasmania) M G Hinton QC, Solicitor-General for the State of South Australia with C Jacobi intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (instructed by Crown Solicitor (SA)) M A Perry QC with P J F Garrisson and K A Stern intervening on behalf of the Australian Capital Territory Attorney-General (instructed by ACT Government Solicitor) M K Moshinsky SC with C P Young appearing as amicus curiae on behalf of the Human Rights Law Centre Ltd (instructed by Allens Arthur Robinson) FRENCH CJ. Introduction 1. The main purpose of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ("the Charter") is "to protect and promote human rights"[1]. The mechanisms by which it seeks to achieve that purpose include[2]: . "setting out the human rights that Parliament specifically seeks to protect and promote"; and . "ensuring that all statutory provisions, whenever enacted, are interpreted so far as is possible in a way that is compatible with human rights." The rights are set out in Pt 2 of the Charter and include the right of a person charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent[3]. This appeal, from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, was brought by Vera Momcilovic against her conviction for trafficking in a drug of dependence contrary to s 71AC of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) ("theDrugs Act"). Section 5 of the Drugs Act provides that a substance on premises occupied by a person is deemed, for the purposes of the Act, to be in the possession of that person unless the person satisfies the Court to the contrary. The appeal raises a number of issues: . Whether s 5 of the Drugs Act should be interpreted, pursuant to the Charter, as placing on a person charged with an offence under the Act involving possession of drugs, only the evidential burden of introducing evidence tending to show that drugs found on premises occupied by that person were not in that person's possession. Whether s 5 applies to the offence of trafficking in drugs created by s 71AC of the Drugs Act. Whether s 71AC is invalid by reason of inconsistency with a provision of the Criminal Code (Cth) ("the Code") creating a similar offence with a different penalty. Whether s 36(2) of the Charter, which provides that the Supreme Court may make a declaration that a statutory provision cannot be interpreted consistently with a human right, is valid and amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Whether, given that the appellant was a resident of Queensland at the time she was charged in Victoria, the County Court of Victoria and the Court of Appeal were exercising federal jurisdiction and, if so, whether that has any effect on the outcome of this appeal. 2. There are four key provisions of the Charter in issue in this appeal. The first is s 25(1), which provides: "A person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." Section 25(1) informs the interpretive principle set out in the second key provision, s 32(1): "So far as it is possible to do so consistently with their purpose, all statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights." The third key provision is s 7(2), which provides that a human right may be subject under law to such reasonable limits as can be justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. 3. The fourth key provision, s 36(2) of the Charter, authorises the Supreme Court, when it is of the opinion that a statutory provision cannot be interpreted consistently with a human right, to make a declaration to that effect. The declaration does not have any legal effect on the outcome of any proceedings before the Court nor on the validity of the statutory provision the subject of the declaration[4]. 4. The appeal was argued in the Court of Appeal as a case primarily concerned with the application of the interpretive rule under s 32(1) of the Charter, and the presumption of innocence under s 25(1) of the Charter, to s 5 of the Drugs Act. The appellant argued in this Court that, contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeal, s 5 should be interpreted as imposing only an evidential burden on an accused person to negative possession. On that interpretation, if the accused person could point to some evidence tending to show that he or she was not in possession of the substance, the legal burden would rest on the prosecution of proving possession beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant also argued that s 5, properly construed, does not apply to the offence of trafficking in drugs created by s 71AC. 5. For the reasons that follow, the appellant cannot succeed on her first Charter point relating to the burden of proof imposed by s 5. Neither the common law, nor the interpretive rules contained in theInterpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) ("the Interpretation Act") and in s 32(1) of the Charter, can transform s 5 of the Drugs Act so as to reduce the legal burden which it imposes to an evidential burden. However, properly construed by reference to the Charter, s 5 does not apply to the trafficking offence with which the appellant was charged so as to lift from the prosecution the burden of proving that she knew of the existence of the drugs she was said to be trafficking. On that basis alone, the appellant succeeds in the appeal and is entitled to a retrial. Her further contention, that the provision creating the offence with which the appellant was charged is inconsistent with similar provisions of the Code and thereby invalid by operation of s 109 of the Constitution, should not be accepted. 6. The Court of Appeal made a declaration under s 36 of the Charter that s 5 of the Drugs Act cannot be interpreted consistently with the presumption of innocence under s 25(1) of the Charter. One of the orders sought by the appellant involved setting aside that declaration. The proposition that this Court should make such an order rested upon two premises: 1. That s 5 could be construed, compatibly with the right of a person accused of a criminal offence to be presumed innocent, so as to impose on that person only an evidential burden. 2. That the Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application to set aside a declaration under s 36. Neither of the premises is satisfied. Although, in my opinion, s 36 validly conferred a non-judicial function on the Court of Appeal, it was not incidental to the Court's judicial function and was not, in any event, amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under s 73 of the Constitution.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Critical Analysis of the Law Surrounding 'One Punch' Killings
    Bond University DOCTORAL THESIS Critical analysis of the law surrounding "one punch" killings Burgess, Craig Award date: 2016 Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LAW SURROUNDING ‘ONE PUNCH’ KILLINGS AUGUST 1, 2016 CRAIG NEILSON BURGESS Abstract This thesis investigates the modern day tragedy of needless loss of life through so-called ‘one punch’ killings. Research has identified more than 90 deaths attributed to so-called ‘one punch’ assaults in Australia between 2000 and 2012. This thesis takes a critical examination of recent legislative moves in Australia and in some overseas jurisdictions that tighten the liability of offenders and the trend of concentrating on the consequences of the crime rather than looking towards the criminality of the offender. It also examines the efficacy of introducing new offences that abolish the test of foresight regarding the outcome of a fatal assault, in order to deal with the problem of mainly alcohol-fuelled violence. The thesis then considers whether there is a justifiable reason to amend the law and whether or not the range of existing offences which already carry high maxima, more fairly and justly labels the crime for the benefit of the offender, the victim and the community.
    [Show full text]
  • Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020
    Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020 Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 16 October 2020 Telephone +61 2 6246 3788 • Fax +61 2 6248 0639 Email [email protected] GPO Box 1989, Canberra ACT 2601, DX 5719 Canberra 19 Torrens St Braddon ACT 2612 Law Council of Australia Limited ABN 85 005 260 622 www.lawcouncil.asn.au Table of Contents About the Law Council of Australia ............................................................................... 3 Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 5 Overview of proposed amendments.............................................................................. 6 Money laundering offences (Schedule 1) ...................................................................... 6 New ‘tiers’ of offences for high-value money laundering............................................. 6 Proof of predicate offences ........................................................................................ 6 Fault elements for attempt offences in relation to Division 400 ................................... 8 Definition of ‘deals with’ in relation to money or property ............................................ 8 Partial defence of ‘mistake of fact as to value’ ........................................................... 9 Obligations in covert investigations (Schedule
    [Show full text]
  • Final Submission to the NSW Law Reform Commission's Review Of
    Final Submission to the NSW Law Reform Commission’s Review of Consent and Knowledge of Consent in Relation to Sexual Assault Offences Andrew Dyer* 1 February 2019 Introduction 1. In this submission, I respond to most of the questions posed by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission (NSWLRC) in its recent Consultation Paper1 regarding s 61HA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and related issues. It must be noted immediately, however, that on 1 December 2018 the Criminal Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Abuse) Act 2018 came into force. This means that s 61HA no longer deals with consent and knowledge of non-consent for the purposes of the sexual assault offences for which the Crimes Act provides. Because s 61HE now regulates such matters (indeed, as the Consultation Paper notes,2 s 61HE applies also to the new sexual touching and sexual act offences created by ss 61KC, 61KD, 61KE and 61KF of the Act), I will refer in this submission to the terms of this new section when making recommendations for reform. 2. Consistently with the views that I expressed in my preliminary submission to this Review, no radical changes should be made to s 61HE.3 However, after reading the Consultation Paper and many of the preliminary submissions, and after considering the terms of the new section, I do accept that it is desirable to make certain alterations to that section in addition to the one that I advocated in my initial submission.4 It is possible that few of the changes to s 61HE that I argue for here would alter the law in this area; however, in my submission, they would clarify the scope of s 61HE – and the manner in which it operates.
    [Show full text]
  • High Court of Australia
    HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA GLEESON CJ, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN AND KIEFEL JJ THE QUEEN APPELLANT AND WEI TANG RESPONDENT The Queen v Tang [2008] HCA 39 28 August 2008 M5/2008 ORDER 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Special leave to cross-appeal on the first and second grounds in the proposed notice of cross-appeal granted. Cross-appeal on those grounds treated as instituted, heard instanter, and dismissed. 3. Special leave to cross-appeal on the third ground in the proposed notice of cross-appeal refused. 4. Set aside orders 3, 4 and 5 of the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria made on 29 June 2007 and, in their place, order that the appeal to that Court against conviction be dismissed. 5. The appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the application for special leave to appeal and of the appeal to this Court. 6. Remit the matter to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria for that Court's consideration of the application for leave to appeal against sentence. On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria 2. Representation W J Abraham QC with R R Davis for the appellant (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)) N J Young QC with M J Croucher and K L Walker for the respondent (instructed by Slades & Parsons Solicitors) Interveners D M J Bennett QC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth with S P Donaghue intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor) B W Walker SC with R Graycar intervening on behalf of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (instructed by Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
    [Show full text]
  • The Normativity of the Principle of Legality
    THE NORMATIVITY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY B RENDAN LIM* The constitutional justification for the principle of legality has been transformed. Its original basis in a positive claim about authentic legislative intention has been repudiat- ed. Statutes today are so far-reaching that it would be wrong to suppose any actual improbability in legislative intentions to abrogate common law rights. Two rival justifications for the principle have emerged in response. One is a refined positive claim: legislatures do not intend to abrogate ‘fundamental’ rights. The other is a normative claim: courts should attribute an intention not to abrogate rights in order to improve the political process. Distinguishing these justifications answers the vexed question of which rights engage the principle of legality. ‘Fundamental’ rights, in the first claim, just are those rights that legislatures do not, in fact, intend to abrogate. The normativity of the second claim is engaged not by ‘fundamental’ rights, but by ‘vulnerable’ rights not adequately protected by the ordinary political process. ‘Vulnerable’ rights may originate not only in the common law but also in statutes. CONTENTS I Introduction .............................................................................................................. 373 II The Principle of Legality Transformed .................................................................. 378 A Myth of Continuity ..................................................................................... 378 B Original Justification and
    [Show full text]
  • 3 0 APR 2018 and STATE of VICTORIA the REGISTRY BRISBANE Plaintiff 10 ANNOTATED SUBMISSIONS for the ATTORNEY-GENERAL for the STATE of QUEENSLAND (INTERVENING)
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA No. M2 of2017 MELBOURNEREG~IS~T~R~Y--~~~~~~~ BETWEEN: HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA CRAIG WILLIAM JOHN MINOGUE FILED Plaintiff 3 0 APR 2018 AND STATE OF VICTORIA THE REGISTRY BRISBANE Plaintiff 10 ANNOTATED SUBMISSIONS FOR THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (INTERVENING) PART I: Internet publication I. These submissions are in a form suitable for publication on the Internet. PART 11: Basis of intervention 2. The Attorney-General for the State of Queensland ('Queensland') intervenes in these 20 proceedings in support of the defendant pursuant to s 78A of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). PART Ill: Reasons why leave to intervene should be granted 3. Not applicable. PART IV: Submissions 30 Summary 4. Queensland's written submissions are confined to addressing the novel arguments of the plaintiff directed to constitutionalising his particular conception of the rule of law. The plaintiff submits that if ss 74AAA and 127A ofthe Corrections Act 1986 (Vie) apply to his parole application then they operate retrospectively and that such retrospectivity is inconsistent with the constitutional assumptions of the rule of law and therefore 40 invalid. 1 1 Plaintiffs submissions, 2 [4](c), 19 [68]; (SCB 84(36), 85(37)(c)). Intervener's submissions Mr GR Cooper Filed on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State CROWN SOLICITOR of Queensland (Intervening) 11th Floor, State Law Building Form 27c 50 Ann Street, Brisbane 4000 Dated: 30 April2018 Per Kent Blore Telephone 07 3239 3734 Ref PL8/ATT110/3710/BKE Facsimile 07 3239 6382 Document No: 7880475 5. Queensland's primary submission is that ss 74AAA and 127 A ofthe Corrections Act do not operate retrospectively as they merely prescribe criteria for the Board to apply in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Independence, and the Separation of Judicial Power Doctrine: a Uniquely Australian Approach
    ‘Liberty’, Judicial Independence, and the Separation of Judicial Power Doctrine: A Uniquely Australian Approach Aman Gaur The separation of the judicial function from the other functions of government advances two constitutional objectives: the guarantee of liberty and, to that end, the independence of Ch III judges. Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, McHugh, Gummow JJ articulating ‘the Wilson proposition’ in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Affairs1 Abstract The nature of the Australian Constitution means that it provides only for a separation of powers between the legislature and executive working as one in the Westminster Parliament and the unelected judiciary. This paper considers whether this doctrine of separation of (judicial) powers achieves, as argued by the High Court, the ‘constitutional objectives’ of an independent judiciary and, in consequence, ‘the guarantee of liberty’. After analysing the nuances of political terms such as "liberty" and the dynamic rationales of Australian federalism, this paper submits that the doctrine does advance a practical degree of judicial independence which facilitates a species of individual liberty under the Constitution. However the paper concludes by critiquing recent High Court decisions that have increasingly curtailed this ‘liberty’ through narrow judicial methodology, weakened notions of ‘judicial power’ and overt deference to parliament. 1 (1996) 189 CLR 1, 11 (‘Wilson’). 153 The ANU Undergraduate Research Journal Introduction This paper submits that the separation of judicial power principles advance a practical degree of judicial independence which facilitates a limited but increasingly curtailed ‘guarantee’ of republican ‘liberty’ for individuals under the Australian Constitution.2 Section I will articulate the Constitution’s ‘liberty’ to clarify and focus the analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview Report: Selected Writings of Dr. Natalie Skead
    Overview Report: Selected Writings of Dr. Natalie Skead I. Scope of Overview Report 1. This overview report attaches selected writings by Dr. Natalie Skead. II. Journal Articles a. Appendix A: Natalie Skead, “Drug-trafficker property confiscation schemes in Western Australia and the Northern Territory: A study in legislation going too far” (2013) 37 Criminal Law Journal 296. b. Appendix B: Natalie Skead and Sarah Murray, “The Politics of Proceeds of Crime Legislation” (2015) 38:2 UNSW Law Journal 455. c. Appendix C: Natalie Skead, “Crime-Used Property Confiscation in Western Australia and the Northern Territory: Laws Befitting Draco’s Axones?” (2016) 41:1 The University of Western Australia Law Review 67. d. Appendix D: Natalie Skead, Tamara Tulich, Sarah Murray and Hilde Tubex, “Reforming Proceeds of Crime Legislation: Political Reality or Pipedream?” (2019) 44:3 Alternative Law Journal 176. III. Submission to the Review of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA) e. Appendix E: Sarah Murray, Natalie Skead, Hilde Tubex and Tamara Tulich, Submission: Review of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA). 1 Appendix A Natalie Skead, “Drug-trafficker property confiscation schemes in Western Australia and the Northern Territory: A study in legislation going too far” (2013) 37 Criminal Law Journal 296. Appendix A Drug-trafficker property confiscation schemes in Western Australia and the Northern Territory: A study in legislation going too far Dr Natalie Skead* Combating drug-related crime is a key focus of proceeds of crime legislation in Australia. Despite this clear focus only three Australian jurisdictions have introduced confiscation provisions levelled specifically at those involved in drug-related crimes: New South Wales, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Justice: Concepts and Judicial Approaches
    The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications Allard Faculty Publications 2012 Open Justice: Concepts and Judicial Approaches Emma Cunliffe Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/fac_pubs Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Citation Details Cunliffe Emma, "Open Justice: Concepts and Judicial Approaches" (2012) 40 Fed L Rev 385. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Allard Faculty Publications at Allard Research Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Allard Research Commons. OPEN JUSTICE: CONCEPTS AND JUDICIAL APPROACHES Emma Cunliffe* ABSTRACT Recent years have seen an increase in the number and scope of non-publication orders and other limits on open justice, an increase in the number of statutes that regulate or threaten open justice and the articulation of an Australian constitutional principle (of institutional integrity) that has the potential to protect some aspects of open justice. The purposes and values of open justice are, however, rarely examined in a comprehensive or theoretically-informed manner. This article provides a theory of open justice which accounts for its heterogeneous nature. Australian judicial approaches to the substance, limits and constitutional dimensions of open justice are analysed in light of the purposes and values of open justice, and a comparison with the much more coherent Canadian approach is supplied. The author concludes that threats to open justice are best managed by an analytical framework which systematically identifies both the benefits of open justice and the countervailing values that are at stake in a given case, and which seeks to provide maximum protection to all of these values on a case-by-case basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation
    FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL INFLUENCES ON STATE JUDICIAL REVIEW Matthew Groves* I INTRODUCTION Since the late 1990s it has become increasingly clear that the Commonwealth Constitution is the dominant influence upon judicial review of administrative action in Australia. The Constitution provides for a minimum entrenched provision of judicial review by recognising and protecting the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. This protection comes at a price because the separation of powers doctrine and the division and allocation of functions it fosters impose many limits upon the reach and content of judicial review of administrative action. This protective and restrictive effect of the separation of powers upon judicial review of administrative action arguably reflects a wider tension in the separation of powers, in which the powers and limits of each arm of government are balanced in a wider sense. The extent to which these competing principles apply to judicial review at the State level has long been unclear. There seemed good reason why judicial review at the State level should not be subject to the restrictions that have arisen at the federal level. After all, the various State constitutions did not adopt an entrenched separation of powers like that of the Commonwealth Constitution.1 The lack of any entrenched separation of _____________________________________________________________________________________ * Law Faculty, Monash University. This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the New South Wales chapter of the Australian Association of Constitutional Law in 2010. Thanks are due to Mark Aronson and reviewers for helpful comments. 1 This point was long acknowledged in different ways. Sometimes it was an acceptance that the overall structure or particular provisions of a State constitution did not provide a basis to hold or imply a principle of separation of powers.
    [Show full text]
  • Kevin Lindgren AM QC – Kable's Case and the Rule Of
    KABLE’S CASE AND THE RULE OF LAW The Hon Kevin Lindgren AM QC Formerly a judge of the Federal Court of Australia* Introduction The decision of the High Court of Australia in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51; 138 ALR 577; [1996] HCA 24 (Kable) has marked the beginning of an ongoing development in Australian constitutional law, with rule of law implications. The rule of law implies effective legal constraints on the exercise of power, including power derived from the operation of democratic processes. In the case of present concern, the law in question is that founded in the Australian Constitution, and the power in question is that of the democratically elected legislatures and governments of the Australian States. The Australian federation The importance of Kable can be understood only against the background of the Australian federal system. The Commonwealth of Australia came into existence on 1 January 1901 as a federation of six States (previously called “Colonies”). (Later, two mainland Territories were established upon being “carved out of” the territorial areas of certain States, but for present purposes I need say no more of their special position in the federation.) The Commonwealth Constitution (henceforth, simply the Constitution) is found in s 9 in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, which is an act of the United Kingdom Parliament. The States have their own Constitution Acts, which are simply Acts of the Parliaments of the States. The State Constitutions can be amended by the State legislatures. * I am indebted to Nick Clark of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia for research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Secrecy Laws and Open Government in Australia
    Secrecy Laws and Open Government in Australia REPORT REPORT 112 December 2009 This Report reflects the law as at 11 November 2009 © Commonwealth of Australia 2009 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in whole or part, subject to acknowledgement of the source, for your personal, non- commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), all other rights are reserved. Requests for further authorisation should be directed by letter to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Copyright Law Branch, Attorney-General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or electronically via www.ag.gov.au/cca. ISBN- 978-0-9807194-0-6 Commission Reference: ALRC Report 112 The Australian Law Reform Commission was established on 1 January 1975 by the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 (Cth) and reconstituted by the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth). The office of the ALRC is at Level 25, 135 King Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. All ALRC publications can be made available in a range of accessible formats for people with disabilities. If you require assistance, please contact the ALRC. Telephone: within Australia (02) 8238 6333 International +61 2 8238 6333 TTY: (02) 8238 6379 Facsimile: within Australia (02) 8238 6363 International +61 2 8238 6363 E-mail: [email protected] Homepage: www.alrc.gov.au Printed by Ligare The Hon Robert McClelland MP Attorney-General of Australia Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 11 December 2009 Dear Attorney-General Review of Secrecy Laws On 5 August 2008, you issued terms of reference for the ALRC to undertake a comprehensive review of secrecy laws and related issues.
    [Show full text]