Free Speech In Australia Essay

Free Speech In Australia Essay
Crime 2 Student Name: Student ID: Word Count :1255 Introduction Free speech has long been
recognized as a common law right, in the political arena of Australia, free speech concept has its
implication in the constitution, but in other cases, it is not provisioned to have constitutional
protection. In England, article 10 states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which
includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without State
interference. However, there are some limitation of the right, if deteriorated national security, public
safety, cause crime or harm other's reputation. Because Australian has the subordinate relationship
with England, Australia has been greatly ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This section limits the languages and behaviour of a person in a disorderly way, offensive way,
threatening way and violent way. Also, any interference with the peaceful passage through, or
enjoyment of a public place by a member of the public. The Queensland Court also restricts the act
of disturbing the public peace. After Coleman, the definition of the 'insulting words' has also been
changed by the parliament of Queensland. The language is indecent, offensive and abusive, the
language would be considered legally unaccepted in public and such behaviors are defined as public
nuisance. However, the parliament gave some relaxation for expressing their perspectives to the
people of the country in a legal
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

High Court In Australia Essay
Question 9 The High Court of Australia will inevitably be subject to some criticism and media
scrutiny surrounding their decisions on contentious cases. Whilst there are many limitations on the
power of judicial review, it is within the High Court's power to override the legislation of elected
governments, or declare the legislation invalid. Therefore, criticisms of High Court decisions which
come into conflict with legislation made by parliament are largely unjustified. Significant
restrictions exist to ensure the High Court operates within the power of judicial review. The main
role of the High Court is to interpret and enforce relevant laws to a case. However, it also has the
ability to decide whether a law passed by a state or the federal ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Thus, when the High Court interprets law, it is possible for the parliament to disagree with that
interpretation, and pass new law that clarifies its specific policy. An example of the parliament
legislating to clarify or possibly override aspects of the High court's decision, is the Migration
Legislation Amendment. In September 2011, the Gillard government introduced the Migration
Legislation Amendment Bill as a response to the High Court's decision that the Gillard government's
policy to send asylum seekers to Malaysia contravened the 1958 Migration Act and the 1946
Immigration Act 1946. (Singleton, G et al 2013, p. 89). The High Court's decision which 'held
invalid the Minister for Immigration declaration of Malaysia as a country to which asylum seekers
who entered Australia at Christmas Island can be taken for processing of their asylum claims
(Singleton, G et al 2013, p. 88) received significant criticism due to controversy that the ruling
displayed judicial activism and impeded upon the government's law making power. Yet, ultimately
the government decided to change the legislation to permit offshore processing to proceed regardless
of the High court's

Ah Hin Teoh Case
Teoh case is a notable case between Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Ah
Hin Teoh, which shows the position of Australia when ratified an international convention. It
concerns on administrative decision which was made contrary to the Convention on the Rights of
the Child (CRC) ratified by Australia. In this case, Teoh alleged that the Minister delegate had
disregard the provisions of CRC, particularly Article 3.1. of CRC, when refused his application for
grant permanent status and consequently issued deportation decision to him. Finally, the High Court
of Australia (by majority) decided that the two administrative decisions be set aside. It is submitted
that Australia is a dualist country, which means its domestic law

Tobacco Act Disadvantages
Despite the benefits that were intended to achieve for society with its implementation, the Tobacco
Plain Packaging Act had a great disadvantaged: the tobacco industry. So, just a few days after this
piece of legislation was ratified, the manufacturer headquartered in Geneva JT International sued the
Commonwealth of Australia to the High Court on December 15th 2011. At the same time, the
British American Tobacco Group (BAT) started a different judicial process with the same aim: put
an end to the TPP Act. These actions were also supported by other companies in the industry such as
Philip Morris Limited, Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited and Van Nelle Tabak Nederland. JT
International, particularly known for the manufacturing of Wiston and Camel, two of its global
flagship brands, argued in its statement of claim that the new law passed by the Parliament involved
an acquisition of its property. They stated that their rights in the trademarks and their get–up rights
were property and thus, the TPP was not only illegal but also unconstitutional because it
contravened the Article 51 (xxxi) of the Australian Supreme Law. Therefore, the piece of legislation
approved in December 2011 was invalid and had no effects. Japan Tobacco International also ought
to keep to Section 15 of the TPP which stated that the "Act does not apply to the extent (if any) that
its operation would result in an acquisition of property from a person otherwise than on just terms".
The Commonwealth of Australia replied in its statement of defense JTI's arguments. They
recognized that the trademarks were property but they rejected to recognize that status to the get–up
rights said to be associated with them. They also replied to JT International SA that, in any event,
both trademark and get up rights were susceptible to federal regulation through laws like the
Tobacco Plain Packaging Act. In addition, the Commonwealth pleaded that the products of that
company and other tobacco groups were bad for the public interest and that therefore, they had a
commitment to the society and that their actions were based on a rational and cogent basis. After
these procedural steps, JT International demurred in reply to the Commonwealth's defense arguing

The Separation Of Powers Doctrine
Introduction
Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. (Robertson,
Crimes against humanity, 90).Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator,
resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding
precedent, normally in common jurisdictions. The doctrine of separation of powers
The doctrine of the separation of powers is an important principle in Constitutional law. The
separation of the legislature is the power to make laws; the executive is the power to administer the
laws; and the judiciary is the power to interpret and enforce laws that is constructed through the
Commonwealth of Australia.
(https://www.murdoch.edu.au/School–of–Law/_document/WA–jurist–
documents/WAJ_Vol3_2012_Greenfeld–––The–Asymmetry–of–the–Separation–of–
Powers.pdf)downloaded on 22/03/2016)
Constitution Act ('the Constitution').1
The separation of powers doctrine states that each arm of the government should be separate from
each other and not exercise the powers or functions of the others.2 Though the Australian
government does not strictly comply in the separation of powers because the

Land Rights In Indigenous Australian History
Arguably one of the most notable cases conducted in the Australian High Court, Mabo and others v
Queensland (No2) (1992), or shortened to Mabo 2, holds prominent significance in Indigenous
Australian history as being the first legal recognition of land rights for Indigenous Peoples under the
common law system. Despite the court ruling in favour of Mabo, and additional legislation
protecting First Peoples native title claims, little buffer presently exists to prevent land claims from
being extinguished. The recent McGlade v Native Title Registrar (2017) decision stands to counter
Indigenous Peoples' rights, as well as amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 Cth to impeach on
Indigenous communities' livelihoods by the restriction of their entitlement ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Here, the Court ruled no Indigenous land use agreement (ILUA) – a form of native title granting –
existed, because presently standing ILUAs were found to be invalid should a member of the
agreement be incapacitated or deceased . This recent decision affects legislation passed to protect
native title claims under the Native Title Act 1993 Cth, with changes being made to the Act
explained as to "resolve uncertainty created by [the McGlade decision] regarding area Indigenous
Land Use Agreements"5. Effectively, the amendments indicate previously standing legislation
protecting Indigenous land rights will be void, with the necessity of the having all agreement
members sign the deed. The reality is, for many old and new native title claims, some Indigenous
Peoples may have passed on and will not be able to complete the agreement to the required legal
standard, rendering their claims invalid. With the Native Title Act 1993 Cth being amended to these
new rulings, it becomes evident that in practice, supposed legislative protection of native title rights
do not actually take

Australi A Constitutional Monarchy And The United States...
Australia is a constitutional monarchy and the United States is a democratic republic. Furthermore,
both Australia and the U.S. are federated nations, wherein governmental power is shared between
national and state governments. This essay will review the similarities and differences between
Australian and American government by exploring their federation, party systems, and their
legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Paths to Independence
In order to understand the origins of both governmental structures, a discussion of each nation's
historical independence is required first. On 1 January, 1901, six British colonies came together to
form the Commonwealth of Australia. This outcome was the result of "deliberation, consultation,
and debate, unlike many other nations that unified as a result of war or conflict" (PEO). Popular
support for federation came from a realization of the inefficiencies associated with near self–
governance while subordinated to the British Parliament. In 1889, Premier of New South Wales Sir
Henry Parkes encouraged the colonies to federate; from 1890 to 1899 a series of conferences and
conventions were held to create a constitution (PEO). At the turn of the 20th century, the British
parliament passed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, and Queen Victoria signed it
soon after (Office of Parliamentary Counsel). The Commonwealth is proclaimed in Centennial Park,
Sydney; Henry Parkes, "The Father of Federation," died in 1896 before this

The Freedom Of Association And Its Social, Logical,...
The freedom of peaceful association is a right that is possessed by everyone. However despite the
significance of this right, and as is the case with other human rights, it is absent from the
Constitution of Australia. In the present paper, an attempt has been made, first of all to analyse the
effect of consulting laws on the freedom of association in its social, logical, political and cultural
contexts. As mentioned above, there is no explicit right to freedom of association that has been
provided by the Constitution of Australia. However during the last decade, a view has been
expressed by the High Court of Australia that the Australian Constitution contains an implied
freedom of communication regarding the political matters of public ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In this regard, Article 20, UDHR states that every person has the right to assemble peacefully and at
the same time it is also been provided by this article that no one can be compelled to join an
association. In the same way, Article 22, ICCPR also recognizes the freedom of association as a
definitive statement in international law and provides that every person should have the right
freedom of association with others and this right includes the right to form and join trade unions for
protecting his interests. It also provides that no restriction may be placed on this right other than the
restrictions that have been prescribed by the law and the restrictions that are necessary for protecting
public health or morals or for protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons. In this regard, this
article also provides that it shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the members of
armed forces and police in exercising this right. At the same time, the significance of the right to
freedom of association for the democratic system of Australia has also been affirmed by the high
court in case titled Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1, 91. However despite the
recognition of this right to freedom of association, there is no statutory or

The Doctrine Of The Separation Of Power
Plan
In this essay I will be explaining how the doctrine of the separation of powers has been
compromised to a less extent in the nation like Australia. The first section will constitute in
exploring the history and the significance of the separation of the power doctrine. In the second
section I will discuss about the compromise of the doctrine, especially between the administrator
and the legislature with some good cases held in high court. Besides, some clarification will be
provided to explain how the philosophical system of separation of power is being compromised.
This estimate will be supported by the depth psychology of several examples and articles where the
doctrine has been compromised concluding that the total separation of the power is merely a myth
but as well in spite of that the doctrine protects the individual rights.
Information will be gathered from legitimate sources as reflected in the references so as to approach
this essay in an academic way. I have segmented my work over 3 weeks, commencing my research
work and preparing my plan on week5, gathering relevant cases and information from books,
articles and also from web during week6 and starting my essay on week7 so that it will be finished
on time.
Word Count: 206
Discuss
'It is well–known that the Separation of Powers doctrine is sine qua non for maintaining the rule of
law however, an absolute separation of power does not exist in the Australian legal system.'
The Doctrine of the Separation of

Australian Justice System Analysis
Introduction
The justice system of Australia was originally developed on 1 January 1901, this was named the
constitution. The organised system of law which is now enforced in Australia originated from a
series of British statuses, when they colonised Australia. Although the laws of Australia is now
different from the United Kingdom in many respects, from the beginnings of the settlement; the
underlying patterns of thought reflect the common law traditions which were originally received
from Britain of the time. The constitution has 128 sections which covers everything from the
structure and power of federal, state and local government, to the establishment of the High Court of
Australia, High Court more powerful than District Court. There are ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
They all are similar in some regards but the main differences are in which area of law they are
working in. A solicitor generally is the man giving most of the legal advice and dealing directly, face
to face, with the client. Solicitors are usually tasked with the responsibility of preparing all the legal
documents and material. The solicitor's role is conducted and dealt with outside of the court rooms;
but in recent times it is now being seen that they are appearing in lower level courts (district).
Solicitors provide assistance in the means of an alternate dispute recommendations, to avoid going
to

The Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act
Introduction
In order to know whether or not the Justice Knows No Walls Reform Act ("the Act") can be
constitutionally applied to the States. We need to consider if the Act will interfere or restrict the
States power over prisons. In Queensland there is already a legislation that protects the rights of
prisoners this is the Queensland Corrective Services Act 2006 (QCAct).
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Constitution) has to support the implementation
of the Act and/or its purpose without affecting the rights of the State law, what also needs to be
taken into consideration is the "nature of the ri7lghts, duties, powers and privileges which it
changes, regulates or abolishes" Fairfax v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1965) 114 CLR 1.
The States are allowed to make laws that are required within their state. The Constitution left most
of the other law–making powers to the states so they are able to define the Federal laws. If a specific
area of law falls within the States Powers and the Federal Government wish to make laws
concerning any of the States area of expertise, the Federal Government needs to have an agreement
with the States. State laws relate to matters that are mainly of state interest such schools; hospitals;
roads and railways; public transport; utilities such as electricity and water supply; mining and
agriculture; forests; community services; consumer affairs; police; prisons; ambulance services.
There are some area's which the Federal

Al-Kateb Vs Godwin Case Analysis
Role of the High Court & Al–Kateb V. Godwin [2004] HCA 37 The highest court and the final court
of appeal in our country is the High Court of Australia, in the ACT. Interpreting and applying the
Constitution are their two main roles. They also hear appeals, by special leave, from Federal, State
or Territory courts (Hcourt.gov.au, 2010). The High Court has seen its fair share of notorious cases.
Al–Kateb v. Godwin is one of the most debated and controversial cases Australia has seen. In 2000,
Ahmed Al–Kateb came to Australia without a visa. He was immediately taken into custody and was
declined a temporary protection visa. Because he was born in Palestine to Kuwaiti parents, it did not
enable him the right of any citizenship to those countries nor in Australia. Therefore, Al–Kateb was
officially defined as a stateless ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
They found that Al–Kateb did not meet the definitions of a refugee but could not claim nationality in
any state so he was definitely stateless. The Migration Act authorised the indefinite detention of him
although there was no actual likelihood of his removal, in the future. It was decided that the
continued detention could be for later removal. Al–Kateb was allowed to be detained without being
charged because he did not have a visa and according to the Migration Act it was lawful to detain a
stateless person for an indefinite period (Haberman, 2008). Now we get onto the big question
concerning the Australia Constitution. Was Al–Kateb's detention in violation of the Constitution?
According to the reasoning of the High Court, the answer is no. The litigant's detention was not a
punishment, nor based on one. Consequently, it did not matter who was responsible for his
detention. He also did not violate Chapter three of the Australian Constitution, which didn't help his
case at all (Haberman, 2008). Honestly, this is just as confusing as the interpretation of the
Migration Act of

The Australia Legal System
The Australian Legal System
Introduction
All countries are a reflection of their histories and this is very much the case with governmental
structures and the associated legal system. The Australian legal system is based on a fundamental
belief in the rule of law, justice and the independence of the judiciary. All people–Australians and
non–Australians alike–are treated equally before the law and safeguards exist to ensure that people
are not treated arbitrarily or unfairly by governments or officials.
Principles such as procedural fairness, judicial precedent and the separation of powers are
fundamental to Australia's legal system.
The common law system, as developed in the United Kingdom, forms the basis of Australian ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Each state and territory court system operates independently. All states have supreme courts and
some also have courts of criminal appeal, which are the highest appellate courts at the state level.
Courts known as 'district' or 'county' courts hear the more serious cases, with a judge presiding over
the court to interpret and determine the law. For more serious charges it is usual for a jury (usually
of 12 people) to determine the guilt or innocence of defendants. Serious offences such as murder,
rape and armed robbery are usually tried in a higher court.
Lesser offences are dealt with in lower courts, known as local or magistrates courts (or courts of
petty sessions), where magistrates determine the guilt or innocence of defendants.
In all cases, defendants are considered to be innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable
doubt. There is no death penalty in Australia.
Legal aid and representation
Australian governments recognize that access to legal representation is an important element in
ensuring justice for all. They provide some legal aid for people assessed as being least able to afford
to cover the costs of a court appearance.
The federal Attorney–General's Department is responsible for administering funding for the

provision of legal aid services for federal law matters through legal aid commissions, administering
a Community

Mabo Decision : Queensland Government
Mabo Decision
The case of Mabo decision with Queensland government was one of the most significant legal case
in Australia, which recognised the land rights and the original ownership of Murray islanders in the
Torres Strait. It was acting by Murray islanders and the High Court upheld. Based on the successful
legal case, there are some key issues in the process for Indigenous' land rights, which were changed
in Australia law and affect future rulings in Australia, such as the Native Title ruling of the
Aboriginal people's land rights after the High Court passed the Act in 1993; in addition, due to this
alteration of Australian laws, it not only had a big impact of Murray islanders but also on some other
groups of Aboriginal people's land rights reform.
The case was started by five Meriam people, Eddie Koiki Mabo, Reverend David Passi, Celuia
Mapoo Salee, Sam Passi and James Rice. (Keon & QC, 2011) These men fought against the State of
Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia. In the early years, Mabo expelled from the island
by Murray Council because of Mabo's father, Robert Zezou Sambo was the leader of Murray
islanders' maritime strike at the same year when Mabo was born in 1936. The Mabo case was started
in 1982; after ten years working on the litigation, the "Native Title Act" was passed in 1993. It
signalled the success of the lawsuit and the rights of Murray people of their traditional lands, as well
as Aboriginal people.
Due to the Murray Island became part of

The law reform process has been effective to a certain...
The law reform process has been effective to a certain extent in achieving just outcomes in regards
to native title. This can be seen through both the Eddie Mabo case [1992] and the Yorta Yorta case
[2002] as although the cases had been concluded with final decisions, there were still measures that
could have been taken, and areas where it could have been improved to achieve a just outcome.
MABO V QUEENSLAND (NO.2) [1992] HCA 23
In 1992, the doctrine of terra nullius was overruled by the High Court in the case Mabo v
Queensland (No.2) [1992] HCA 23. After recognising that the Meriam people of Murray Island in
the Torres Straits were native title landholders of their traditional land, the court also held that native
title existed for all ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
YORTA YORTA V QUEENSLAND
The Yorta Yorta people were one of the first Indigenous groups to make a native title claim in
Australia, in February 1994. The Yorta Yorta people claimed native title to an area of land and
waters in the Northern Victoria and Southern New South Wales. However, the High Court rejected
the appeal, and it was concluded by the judge that the Yorta Yorta people had ceased to occupy their
traditional lands with relation to their traditional laws and customs, and that the period of time in
between had washed away any evidence and acknowledgement of the practise of their traditional
laws and customs. In order for Indigenous people to prove their Native Title rights, they must prove
that they have had an uninterrupted connection with the land and the practise of the traditional laws
and customs has been maintained since time of colonization. This rule disregards the effects of
colonization; that indigenous people have been forcibly removed from their homes, cultures being
forcibly altered which all results in an adaption to the new environment and way of life. Therefore,
the required burden of proof is quite discriminatory, making it increasingly difficult for Indigenous
people to prove

High Court In Australia Case Study
1. Describe the main powers held by the Federal and State Governments under the Constitution of
1901. Explain the concept of the division of powers.
Federal Powers under Constitution–
The Federal government is the highest level of government in Australia. Its laws govern all of
Australia. Its powers are called Exclusive powers. Its powers come under the Constitution and is
covered in Sections 52, 90, 114 and 115. Section 52 has exclusive power to make laws in regard of
peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth. Section 90 gives them the power to
excise duties and impose customs. Section 114 restricts the state from raising naval or military
forces therefore the Federal can only do it. Section 115 also restricts ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
International law is law that governs for peace and equity however is non–enforceable therefore its
aims are most commonly not obliged. Sometimes International law can have a impact upon our
domestic law. We can enter into treaties within we like and this can have an effect over the Federal
and State laws. The Governor–General along with the Prime Minister and the most important
ministers decide if we are to join a treaty. Once we join a treaty it is not automatically incorporated
into our domestic law. For the to be incorporated into our law we an either have a legislative
statement which means that Statue law says that it is the "force of law" incorporating certain
provisions. Copying it is other way, only taking art of the treaty that we believe is relevant for our
law or rewriting the treaty into an Act, this may incorporate any part of the treaty we see relevant.
The incorporation of the treaties has impacted on our Australian legal system as the International
laws are becoming a major debate in our society. It is a growing debate that treaties should become
the base of our Federal law and establish it, they sometimes are but we believe that the whole treaty
should be automatically part of our law. Justice Michael Kirby recently made a speech that
addressed this debate. He proposed that we should incorporate all treaties into our law and improve
the way we

Declaratory Act Essay
On the 3rd of june, 1992, ten years after the land act fight , the High Court ruled by a six–to–one
majority that the Meriam people held native title over Murray Island. The decision ended terra
nullius an old english word used to describe a land that belonged to no other , and the introduction
of the Native Title Act was formed (National native title tribunal,2017). Legal proceedings for the
case began on 20 May 1982, when a group of Meriam men, Eddie Koiki Mabo, Reverend David
Passi, Celuia Mapoo Salee, Sam Passi and James Rice, brought an action against the State of
Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia, in the High Court, claiming 'native title' to the
Murray Islands (AIATSIS,2017). The Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs sent ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
To establish a mechanism for determining claims to native title. To provide for, or permit, the
validation of past acts, and intermediate period acts, invalidated because of the existence of native
title. The native title act inspired by the mambo case enabled and encouraged the aboriginal people
in the past, present and future to stand up for their culture, community and land. The mambo case
allows me to understand the fight the aboriginal people fought for. In recognising that Indigenous
peoples in Australia had prior rights to land, the Court held that these rights, where they exist today,
will have the protection of the Australian law until those rights are legally extinguished (HUMAN
RIGHTS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA,2017). On June 30th 1993, the wiki people had made a claim
for native title in the federal court of Australia for land on the cape your peninsula in Queensland,
Native title however if not pass through the parliament till December 1993.(Federal judicial
scholarship,2012)(HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA,2017). Native title is the
recognition in Australian law that some Indigenous people continue to hold rights to their land and
waters, which come from their traditional laws and customs (AIATSIS,2017). For the native title act
to become seen as a law there where particular rules that must stay intact. This peoples right and
interests to be possessed and recognised under the traditional laws currently acknowledged

Case Study Mabo/Essay Federalism
FEDERALISM Federalism is a form of government which unites separate political entities, within a
national system whilst still retaining their independence (AUSTRALIANPOLITICS.COM, 2011).
In this essay it will be discussed that the 'Mabo Decision' and the implementation of the Native Title
Act, 1993, is an example of this and will be analysed whilst unearthing the challenges and benefits
which were exhumed within this historical test case, whilst explaining the impact of the High Court
Ddecision. The Australian system of government is a federal system incorporating characteristics of
both the British system and that of the United States. The Australian Constitution provides for a
Westminster type parliament, an upper house (Senate) and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
The First Australians SBS (1989).' Malo's Law is a strict law of a spirit which Murray Islanders had
practiced for hundreds of years. The main law below as explained by Father Dave Passi, "Tag Mauki
Mauki, Teter Mauki Mauki", which translates to: "Your hand can't take something that does not
belong to you unless you have permission. Your feet cannot walk in, or through someone else's land,
unless there is permission. Father Dave Passi, First Australians SBS (2008)". The Queensland
Supreme Court Judge, Justice Moynihan, also went for a trek into the Murray Island reserve to see
first hand the native border control measures which have been in place for many years by the local
people. These included certain landmarks, trees, rock formations etc. These have been recognised
locally for generations. It was also pointed out that these land parcels under tribal law were passed
on from Father to Son and never could be traded for currency. Edward Koiki Mabo's mother had
passed away weeks after his birth and was the adopted son of his uncle, as was the Meriam nation's
people's cultural tradition. This was to be a major deciding factor in the decision of Mabo and
Others v Queensland (No. 1, 1988), the core argument from Queensland was that Mabo was not the
person he said he was. In 1990, Justice Moynihan's report was presented to the High Court in
Canberra. It found in favour of the Murray

Australia Vs Vietnam Case Study
It was on the 9th May 1973 that Australia instigated proceedings against France and also asked for
measures to be put in place to protect them until an outcome was reached. The court granted this
motion on the 22nd of June 1973. At this time the court also noted the importance of a timely
discussion of the courts jurisdiction and Australia's application. It was alleged by Australia in letters
to the court that the French Government breeched these orders of the 22nd June 1973, that the
'French government should avoid nuclear tests causing the deposit of radio–active fall–out in
Australian territory' in the fact that France carried out tests in 1973 and 1974 after the court had
issued such interim measures. On the 16th of May 1973 the French Government put forward their
belief that the court lacked jurisdiction and stated that it was not going to actively participate in
proceedings. This was done through a letter from the French Ambassador to the Netherlands which
said: "... the Government of the [French] Republic, as it has notified the Australian Government,
considers that the Court is manifestly not competent in this case and that it cannot accept
jurisdiction". ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Australia believed, based upon results from the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects
of Atomic Radiation, that this was potentially dangerous to it's citizens and was also against
international law on the basis of sovereignty over territory and the freedom of the high seas. France
in response chose not to participate in the proceedings as they did not believe that the court
possessed jurisdiction. The court then began to look thoroughly at jurisdiction and admissibility
which turned out to be how the case started and

Land Rights Impact On Land And Land
Paragraph 1: What led to this event
For many years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been deprived of receiving land
rights within Australia. Before the colonisation of Australia in 1788, they had been faced with an
ongoing struggle to achieve legal and moral acknowledgment and possession of land rights (Pascoe,
2012). Their connection to the land and country is an essential part in establishing their cultural
heritage, including their social and economic development. It is only through their laws and
customers in which they able to connect and adapt to the world and land around them. On 20th
May1982, Edward Koiki Mabo an Indigenous land rights campaigner, together with his fellow Mer
Islanders, presented a case to the Australian High Court (Pascoe, 2012; Reilly, 2002). Due to Mabo's
fight for the possession and ownership of land rights, the Court stated that Meriam people own
rights to their traditional lands and that these rights should be recognised and protected by the
Australian law (Pascoe, 2012). After several years of struggling for land rights and ownership, the
Mabo decision overturned the notion of terra nullius as the Australian High Court dismissed the idea
that Australia belonged to nobody before British Settlement. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people across Australia were finally recognised and respected as the ancestors of the land and the
first people of Australia (Pascoe, 2012; Reilly 2002). In 1993, the Native Title Act was passed

The Division Of Law-making Powers In Australia
Australia 's Federal System is dynamic and the division of lawmaking power between the
Commonwealth and State since 1901 has changed dramatically; Critically discuss, focussing on the
major reasons for those changes.
On the first of January 1901 Australia became a federation when the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act came into force. Since this time, Australia has been a federated country, consisting
of a Commonwealth Parliament and six State Parliaments these being Tasmania, Victoria, New
South Wales, Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia. The Division of law–making
power has changed considerably since 1901.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (commonly known as the Constitution) gives the
Commonwealth ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Gaining financial dominance also meant that the Commonwealth had de facto control over residual
areas, as it could determine how much money was to be spent on education etc.
High Court interpretations of the Constitution have also played a vital role in the change of the
division of lawmaking power. One example is the Franklin River Dam Case where the Tasmanian
Government challenged the Commonwealth Parliament in the High Court over the validity of the
World Heritage

Separation Of Judicial Power And The Australian Constitution
The separation of power doctrine is properly speaking a doctrine not so much about the separation
of function as about the separation of functionaries. In case of commonwealth it represents an
intermediate position between the governmental systems the United States of America and the
United Kingdom each of which in some measure serve as a model for the Australian constitution.
The effect of relative absence of power separation of power between legislative and executive
functions of government, the effect of the strict demarcation of judicial power and the content of
judicial power. Although the separation of power has divided power and function each body it is
very hard to implement them in the complex modern community. The countries which ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
The boil makers case and others such as Drake vs minster for immigration and ethnic affairs in the
case it was held by the federal court of Australia that it is not unconstitutional for a federal judge to
be appointed in a personal capacity as a member of the administrative appeal tribunal. In many cases
it has been evident that the absolute separation of power cannot be done in the practical scenario as
easily as in theory because of the complex nature of society and the clashes or influence of three
bodies on the function of each other is very much possible and certain. For instance judges
questioned their function and task outside their judicial power for executing congress regulating
claims to invalid pension. In recent time in some cases it also viewed that high court is playing
political role in Australia as evidenced by its interpretation of the Constitution in

High Court In Australia
The High Court of Australia is the most superior court in the Australian legal system. It was
established in 1901 under Section 71 of the Australian Constitution. The fundamental responsibility
of the High Court is to uphold the rule of law that no citizen and no government is above the law.
Under Sections 75 and 76 of the Constitution the primary function of the High Court is to interpret
the Constitution and resolve disputes between Commonwealth and States. The High Court is the
final court of appeal from all courts in all territories and states and is the last for interpretation of the
Australian Constitution. Graduating Over time the High Court has used the constitution to make
important judgements for the betterment of Australian society. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
For example, the Adban Case (1992) the Commonwealth passed legislation to prevent political
advertising on media during elections. This was challenged by NSW government and Australian
Capital Television who stated that it was outside of Commonwealth's power to meddle with free
speech of political debate. The High Court sided with the plaintiff stating their should be freedom of
political debate as an important principle of democracy even though they believed it was
unconstitutional. This illustrates an instance where the High Court has moved too far from what is
written in the Australian constitution. In 1997, Lawrence Levy a Victorian Animal Rights activist
disrupted the beginning of the duck shooting season. He was arrested and appealed to the High
Court to overturn his conviction. The High Court moved beyond the principle of free speech and
included actions as well as words. This is another example of the High Court moving beyond the
word of the constitution by implied rights of freedom of speech. In 2009, street preachers were
banned by the Adelaide Council from meeting in Rundle Mall. Two brothers took the Council
decision to the High Court stating denial of their freedom of speech. In this case the High Court
supported the Adelaide Council. Furthermore, in 2013, Man Horan Monis wrote an offensive letters
to the families of Australian soldiers who was killed

Eddie Mabo Case And Their Role In The Case
Describe the individual of group that initiated the case and their role in the case. Provide
background information about them.
Eddie Mabo's ancestors lived for centuries on a group of three islands in the Torres Strait, near Cape
York. The islands, known as the Murray Islands, were annexed by the Queensland Government in
1879 which meant they became a part of Australia
Queensland became responsible for their administration but despite this annexation, and the
presence of European missionaries on the islands, the indigenous people permanently and
continuously inhabited them – with very little change to their way of life as a result of the
annexation. They continued to live in their settled communities; they maintained their traditional
beliefs and customs; there was a clear way of passing on their garden plots of land, and ways of
settling disputes about legal matters.
Mabo was a long–running case launched by the Meriam people of the Murray Islands to challenge
the validity of state land laws and seek recognition of rights to land.
It involved the High Court considering the application of Australian law to the rights of Indigenous
Australians, in particular regarding the legal concepts of terra nullius and native title
What was the event of right violation that led to legal action being taken?
In the late 1970s, the Queensland Government attempted to dispossess some of the local people in
their own land. In 1982, Five members on the island of Mer decided to take the matters to court, one
of these people was Eddie Mabo.
They claimed that their rights to the land had not been extinguished by the Crown when their islands
were taken over or annexed by Queensland. They still had a legal right to the land based on the legal
concept of 'native title' – right of ownership based on traditional ownership of the land. The
Queensland Government's response was to pass the Coast Islands Declaratory Act, 1985. They
claimed that: All rights to the land went to the Crown on the 1879 annexation – that native title had
been extinguished, and that no compensation for loss of land would be due to the Meriam people.
From 1985 and 1992, Eddie Mabo and other residents of the Murray Islands in far north Queensland
took action

Notes: European Settlement of Australia Commenced in 1788....
European settlement of Australia commenced in 1788. Prior to this, Indigenous Australians
inhabited the continent and had unwritten legal codes
Terra Nullius:
Terra Nullius: A Latin term which translates as 'Empty Land ' or 'Nobody 's Land '. Captain Cook
declared Australia to be 'Terra Nullius ' when he sailed into Botany Bay on April 28th 1770, so that
he could claim Australia for Britain. This proclamation ignored the fact that hundreds of different
groups of Indigenous people occupied the land.
The indigenous people did not have any form of political organisation. The British could not find
any recognised leaders with authority so they couldn't sign treaties.
The first test of terra nullius in Australia occurred with the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
This assertion, however, was undermined by the fact that in 1913 the Queensland government had
bought land from the Meriam people on which to build a police station. If the Crown (and therefore
the State government) already owned the land then why would it have to buy some from the
Indigenous inhabitants? The government had also established a land court in the early part of the
20th Century to preside over land disputes between the Meriam people. Again, why establish a court
to make judgements if the land belonged to the Crown?
On 3rd June 1992 six of the seven High Court Judges ruled; 'The Meriam people are entitled as
against the whole world, to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the lands of the Murray
Islands '
On June 3rd 1992, six months after Eddie "Koiki" Mabo 's tragic death, the High Court upheld his
claim that Murray Islanders held native title to land in the Torres Strait.
Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 (Mabo) declared that terra nullius had never legally
existed and that it had been wrongfully applied to Australia. The high court said that 'ultimate ' title
existed instead, and through that, native title could be claimed. Australian land law has developed
from English land law and it was under those principles that Australia was settled. At common law
all land is owned by the Crown which then deals with that land as it sees fit.
Under common

Similarities And Differences Between Civil And Criminal...
What are the main similarities and differences between the conduct of civil and criminal
proceedings in the Australian court system? 700 Introduction: The Australian court system has
hierarchy structured, every court owns a unique set of jurisdictions. According to the crime severity
of the civil and criminal case, different courts in the hierarchy will deal with different cases. There
are two basic types in the Court system of Australia that are State Courts and Federal Courts (The
Australian court system, n.d.). This assessment will focus on Australian court system at all levels
and analysis the similarities and differences between the civil and criminal proceedings. The State
Court The State courts are required to deal with a large number of disputes and offenses. For the
criminal and civil case, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Both of this two need to conduct in accordance with law. The direct acceptance place of the both is
the local court. Plaintiff and defendant have to disclosure of evidence in civil or criminal
proceedings. These two kinds of proceedings must be involved in the Australian judiciary,
conducting the trial of the case. After that make a final ruling (Civil and Criminal procedure, 2013).
Differences The criminal proceeding is different from the civil proceeding. The civil proceeding
stipulated in the civil procedure must start from the appeal (What Happens in Criminal and Civil
Trials, 2015). Whereas the purpose of criminal proceedings is to protect the constitutional rights of
those who are investigated, accused, and tried. Furthermore, anyone may be a party to a civil case
however, the criminal investigation begins with a crime happening. While civil proceeding is for
balancing the relation between the equal subjects in personal and property safety. People who
violation of a criminal law must be responsible for their actions. So the result of civil and criminal
proceeding is not the

Australian Court Hierarchy
The term "Court Hierarchy" is a very important word in the law world in modern society. It's
definition gives a very clear and concise meaning to the law industry. The phrase can be split into
two words to be easily dealt and understood. The word "court" is from a Greek derivative "cohors"
or "cohort" meaning courtyard or retinue. It's definition from the dictionary certainly portrays the
law as a very important and distinguished practice. "a. A person or body of persons whose task is to
hear and submit a decision on cases at law." "b. The building, hall, or room in which such cases are
heard and determined." The word, "hierarchy", however, has a more powerful and specific relation
to the law world. It is a Greek derived word and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The State Supreme Court's jurisdiction also covers disputes where one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000) or more is claimed for personal damages. It also hears appeals from lower courts or
Supreme Court cases where a single judge has made the decision. In the situation where an appeal is
made against a single judge's decision this is heard by the full bench of the Supreme Court. This
usually means that three judges hear the appeal.
 
 County or District Courts.
 Towards the mid section of the Australian Court Hierarchy System, lies the County of District
Court. The cases that this court's jurisdiction covers is very similar to those of the Supreme Court.
This particular court hear appeals from the lower courts and a great majority of criminal hearings are
heard in these courts. The judges appointed to hear the cases of this court are appointed by the State
Parliament. The Country Court's jurisdiction is empowered to hear civil disputes in which one
hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or less is claimed for personal damages.
 
 Magistrates' Court or Courts of Petty Sessions.
 Another common name for the Magistrates' Court is "the police court". This name was given to
this particular court due to the fact that a majority of cases brought before this court involve the
police having made an investigation of some kind and laying a charge. The prosecutor in these cases
is usually a policeman.

The High Court of Australia
High Court
The High Court of Australia is apart of the Federal Court hierarchy, sitting above the Victorian
hierarchy. The High Court is the most prestigious court in Australia and can be found in the ACT.
The High Court is split into three levels depending on the number of justices and what is being
heard; the High Court (1 justice), The Full Court of the High Court (not less than two justices) and
the Full Bench of the High Court (5–7 justices). The main role of the High Court is to interpret the
Constitution. The Constitution is the most important legal and political document affecting the lives
of Australians. The Constitution, founded in 1901, gives the High Court the power to interpret the
Constitution if the need arises. The legal document protects Australians in their dealings with the
Commonwealth Parliament. It does this by placing restrictions of the law–making powers of the
Commonwealth and making provision for the High Court of Australia to act as the final arbiter. The
High Court is also able to invalidate any legislation that seems to be unconstitutional and because
the Constitution is limited, the High Court also may be asked to decide whether a law made by the
Commonwealth Government is within that power.
The High Court has both original criminal and civil jurisdiction. The Court's jurisdiction comprises
almost all civil matters arising under Australian federal law and some summary and indictable
criminal matters. The High Court does not generally deal

Equity and Trusts: Barnes V Addy Second Limb Essay
Introduction
This paper examines the development and scope of accessory liability under the second limb of
Barnes v Addy as it stands in both England and Australia. As to the law in England, the focus will be
on the rearticulation of the principle of accessory liability under the second limb as stated in Royal
Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan. In particular, it will consider the extent to which the decision has
reconciled inconsistencies in earlier authority and remedied those issues propounded to be inherent
in the traditional formulation of the principle. At this stage, this traditional principle remains good
law in Australia. However, as suggested in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say–Dee Pty Ltd, there is
potential for the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Conversely, other judges have found the judgement in Consul Development v DPC to be
inconclusive, adopting a narrow interpretation of the judgement of Stephen J and restricting the
requisite knowledge only to the first three categories of the Baden scale. This tendency toward a
narrow approach increased following the decision in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan ('Royal
Brunei') as courts attempted to reconcile the UK and Australian lines of authority. However in other
cases, such as Gertsch v Atsas it was held that that the acceptance of the first four Baden categories
was synonymous with accepting a standard of honesty.
Given the discordant state of the Australian authorities, the High Court took the opportunity in Farah
Constructions Pty Ltd v Say–Dee Pty Ltd, ('Farah Constructions') to clarify the Australian position
on knowing assistance. Their Honours declared, in obiter, that Australian courts should continue to
follow the decision in Consul Development v DPC, thereby continuing to see as necessary the
requirement of a dishonest design on the part of the fiduciary, and subscribing to the proposition that
where the third party's knowledge falls within the first four categories of the Baden scale it will
answer the requirement of knowledge under the second limb of Barnes v Addy. In what has been
referred to as a "profound shift in the rules of judicial engagement"

Australian Legal System Research Paper
Australia is a democratic country. It consists of three main authorities: the Queen of Australia (The
Queen of UK), the Senate and the House of Representatives. The representative government is the
people elected members of the parliament to represent them. The lower house (the House of
Representatives) consists 150 members, each is elected from single member constituencies which
are also known as electoral divisions. The upper house (the Senate), consists of 76 members (12 for
each state, and 2 each for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory). Every 3 years,
the full House of Representatives and half of the Senate is dissolved and goes up for re–election.
There are 3 main authorities in the Australian Legal System which ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
To make laws, the Parliament enacts legislation which is also known as statutes or Acts of
Parliament. An Act of Parliament starts as a Bill in one of the Houses. A Bill is the draft of a
proposed law. Most Bills deal with the management of public affairs and the implementation of
Government policy and are introduced by a Minister, but a member of either House is entitled to
introduce a Private Member's Bill. To become an Act, a Bill must pass through a number of formal
stages. The hierarchy of courts in Australia consists a variety of courts and tribunals in both the
federal and state and territory levels. The High Court being the highest court in the Australian
judicial system. Australian common law is applied in the various Australian courts and ultimately
determined by the High Court now that appeals to the (British) Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council have been abolished. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is the military organisation
responsible for the defence of Australia. It consists of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), Australian
Army, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and a number of 'tri–service' units. The ADF has a
strength of just over 80,000 full–time personnel and active reservists, and is supported by the
Department of Defence and several other civilian

The Role Of The Doctrine Of Precedent
The purpose of this essay focus on the important role of the doctrine of precedent in Australia legal
system. The doctrine of precedent, in a simple words, is the principle that binds the common law
together. As a general rule it means the courts were bound to follow the decisions of all courts
superior to it in its own court hierarchy. This paper is divided into four parts. The first part mentions
a background of the topic, the second part concentrates on analyzing the principle as well as the
advantages and disadvantages of the doctrine of precedent. Finally the conclusion sums up the
outcome of the research.
The doctrine of precedent, as mentioned, was settled in the nineteenth century. Before that,
precedents were considered to be ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The diagram above show the Australia Court hierarchy. The diagram is also demonstrate how the
concept of Doctrine of Precedent applies.
A further question that arise is when the High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Victoria
will depart from their previous decisions. First of all, the High Court of Australia will normally
follow its own earlier decisions and will depart from them if there is a strong reason to do so. In the
case in which the High Court did not follow its own previous decision, it said that: "while stare
decisis is a sound policy because it promotes predictability of judicial decision and facilitates the
giving of advice, it should not always trump the need for desirable change in the law especially we
would add if the change is necessary to maintain a better connection with more fundamental
doctrines and principle". For example, in the case of Imbree v McNeilly (2008) 249 ALR 647 7, the
decision of the previous case named Cook v Cook (1986) 162 CLR 376 8 was no longer a good law
to be follow therefore the court decided to overruled this previous case.
Conversely, a court of appeal will normally follow its own previous decision and the situations that
it determines not to do so will be rare. For instant, the Victorian Court of Appeal only depart from its
own previous decision where it is convinced that the decision is "clearly, or plainly, wrong' 9. In the
case of

Essay on Effectiveness of Law Reform
Evaluate the Effectiveness of Law Reform in Australia
Law Reform in Australia is effective in varying degrees. Through Native Title Reform and Law
Reform in Sport, the effectiveness of Law Reform in Australia is further outlined.
The term 'Native Title' refers to the right of Indigenous people to their traditional land. In Australia it
has a legal significance of the right to an area of land, claimed by people whose ancestors were the
original inhabitants of the land before European settlement. Also who can prove that they have had a
continuous connection with the land. Native Title is the term given by the High Court to Indigenous
land rights by the Court in Mabo and others v State of Queensland (No.2) [1992] HCA 23. The case
required ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Sport is a part of Australian culture, in which Australian athletes have performed well over the past
years. 'Sport Law' ranges over the areas of contract law, tort law, and the criminal law. Tort law is
the body of law that deals with civil wrongs including negligence, defamation, trespass and
nuisance.
Civil litigation is court action brought to remedy a wrong or breach of contract. This is shown
through Canterbury Bulldogs player Sonny Bill Williams breached his contract by walking out on
the club after having signed a contract which was legally binding. Through this law reform has been
further enhanced in Australian sport.
Compensatory damages of more than $68,000 were awarded and the court held that Bugden's club
bore vicarious liability for assault during being employed as a player. Vicarious liability is the legal
liability imposed on one person or agent (e.g. an employer) for the wrongful acts of another, when
those acts were done within the scope of the legal relationship between them, such as employment.
The Australian Sports Commission (ASC) is a statutory authority of the Australian government. This
established the Australian Sports Commission Act 1989 (Cth), the ASC plays a role in the
development and

Australian Judicial System Analysis
In Australia the judiciary system is a key aspect to uphold peace, order and a good government. The
Australian government is ruled by a separation of powers; the parliament, Executive and the
judiciary. These powers are a significant feature of the Australian system of government as the
power to change and make federal law is divided between these powers (Parliamentary Education
Office). The judiciary is a part of the government which delivers justice according to the law
(Queensland Parliament 2015). The term 'judiciary' refers broadly to the persons who run the
system; the courts, judges, magistrates, adjudicates and other support personnel (Queensland
Parliament 2015). The judiciary must not be biased and act without fear to those of ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
The doctrine of precedent is when judges are deciding cases they must look at past judicial decisions
especially when cases have similar facts, this means that judges may have to seriously consider the
reasoning of judges in past cases even if they are not bound to do so (Harding 2013). The precedent
is a legal rule or principle that determines the outcome of the case, to be binding the precedent must
be determined if it is relevant to the case by identifying the ratio decidendi; "the reason for the
decision" (High Court of Australia 2006). Obiter dicta; "By the way', is not a binding precedent
however, can be used to determine the outcome in future cases (High Court of Australia 2006). The
Judiciary is constrained by power through the doctrine of precedent and the law however the
judiciary can exercise power by using precedent to achieve justice on cases (Harding 2013). The
doctrine of precedent constitutes critical assistance to judicial decision making, the precedent
provides both stability and flexibility in developing common law (Ellis 2013). Some constraints on
power of the judiciary could include the strict rules of the precedent which could lead to an injustice
on individual cases another constraint is the amount of cases reported each year, this could make it
difficult to find relevant precedent and laws to follow (Judicial

Aboriginal Land Rights Case Study
1) Government policies of ATSI peoples include:
White Australian Policy – 1901 – tried to ban all Caucasian people from entering the country
Western Australia Aborigines Act – 1905 – this made the Chief prosecutor the legal guardian of
half–caste children under the age of 16
NSW Aborigines Protection Act – 1909 – introduced to public schools
Assimilation Policy – 1937 – Aboriginal people are assimilated into the white society
Stolen generations – 1910–1970 – children were forcibly removed from their families
Aboriginal Integration Policy – 1965 – introduced to give Aboriginal people more control of their
lives and society
Citizenship – 1967 – ATSI peoples gain citizenship
Aboriginal Land Rights – 1976 – Aboriginal people gained rights to their land
Native Title Act – 1993
2) ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Native Title Act was created so that Aboriginal people could consult to determine recognition of
Aboriginal peoples' connection with their land. The Act has created a separation within Aboriginal
societies as it is usually misinterpreted. The party bringing forward a case of native title must be
able to prove the ongoing connection to the land that they are claiming for. This is extremely hard to
do therefore many cases aren't successful. An obligation of the Act is that the claimants must prove a
continuity of traditional laws and customs on the land that is being claimed since European

Wik Decision Case Study
This is a decision of the High Court of Australia which had been delivered on 23 December 1996. It
is also known as the Wik decision. The main issue involved was whether statutory leases
extinguishes native title rights. The court found out that that the statutory pastoral leases under
consideration by the court did not bestow the rights of exclusive possession on the leaseholder.
Hence native title rights could co–exist depending on the nature of particular pastoral lease. Where
there was a conflict of rights, the rights under the pastoral lease would extinguish remaining native
title rights.
Background
In 1992 the High Court of Australia found in the Mabo case that Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islanders had the rights to their land before

Akiba Legal Case Summary
August 7 2013, a decision with respects to commercial fishing rights and interests was passed down
by the High Court of Australia in the case of Akiba on behalf of the Torres Strait Regional Seas
Claim Group v Commonwealth of Australia. This case is about native title claim in the interest of
the Torres Strait Regional Seas Claim Group in pursuit for a determination claiming that they
obtained Native Title Rights over an extensive part of waters of the Strait to fish and for commercial
purposes. In 2010 The primary judge, Finn JJ held that the Seas Claim Group delighted in non–
exclusive rights to get to, stay in and utilise their oceanic regions moreover to access and take
resources for any reason subject to conventional laws and traditions.

Executive Power In Australia Essay
General Intro
Constitution holds the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of
constitutional authority. Constitution of Australia, or well known as Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution, is as well settings out the structure, power and procedure upon government and also
draws out the relationship between the commonwealth of Australia and its citizens.
Established in New South Wales, the first Constitution Act was the Australian Constitutions Act
1842 (UK). This Act introduced the idea of a legislative council, but still short on explaining about
the responsibility. Thus, the UK Parliament passed Australian Constitution Act 1850 (UK) to
overcome the need of responsible government. After that, the final constitution bill then approved ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Governor–General functions as a head of state on behalf of the Queen. While executive
government powers are exercised by the Governor–General or in his or her name, however, in
reality, such actions are carried out as advised by the Prime Minister and Ministers. Even though not
mention explicitly in Constitution, Constitutionally, Prime Minister and Ministers got their
executive power from their membership of Federal Executive Council under section 62.
The concept of Separation of Power between Executive and Legislative Power is not a strict
concept, due to the common law concept of responsible government, where the executive was a
member of the Parliament and thus liable to them. Barwick CJ on New South Wales v The
Commonwealth (the Seas and Submerged Lands case) indicated that relationship between
Legislative and Executive organ are interdependent, where on carrying the role as law administer
depend on its ability to secure political support in

Constitutional Law Australia
Constitutional Interpretation: Engineers' Case and criticisms of Callinan J in the Workchoices' Case.
By Mark Walker
Introduction
In the dissenting judgment made by Callinan J in the landmark New South Wales v Commonwealth
("Workchoices' Case"), a strong criticism was mounted against constitutional interpretation methods
employed in the judicial forum. Explicitly, this conjecture was focused at Isaacs J's judgement in
Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd ("Engineers' Case"), where a
textualism approach to constitutional interpretation was adopted. Callinan J expressed the Engineers'
Case as "less than satisfactory", using "detached language" to discredit its literal methodology of
interpreting the constitution. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Such implied rights are only applicable if they are "plainly arising from the text of the Consititution,
rather than assumptions upon which it is based, but which is does not express". This supports a more
recent trend to a purposive approach to interpretation of the constitution.
Summary of current position
The High Court of Australia is essentially focused towards textualism, however as it can be seen
there has been a more current relaxation of the rule in recent years.
Textualism as the preferred methodology of interpretation
Although Callinan J in the Workchoices' Case does not give full merit to these justifications, a
textual approach to the interpretation of the constitution expressed in Engineers' Case it not without
its reasons. There are numerous considerations that need to be weighed when determining the
appropriate methodology for constitutional interpretation. A major determining factor is the
practicability of its legal application, and its ability to appropriately and fairly resolve issues
entrenched in the text of the constitution. The following arguments provide a support for textualism,
and a criticism of other methodologies.
Progression to textualism as a necessity
Through the progression of history the need for the principles articulated in Engineers' Case was
both necessary and appropriate. Callinan J in Workchoices' Case made

The Australian Legal System Of Australia
Contents
Introduction
Discussions
Conclusion
Bibliography Introduction
The Australian legal system was started to develop from the year of 1901. It is mainly based on the
British legal system. The foundation of the legal system is the Australian Constitution. The
Constitution was developed by the people of Australia who voted for its implementation. This
document sets out the original laws of the nation. The Australian legal system is mainly depend on
statute and common law.
Statutory Law is law made by parliament. This may be the Federal parliament or the parliament of a
State or Territory and Common law is based on English common law in which the judge is acting as
an umpire.
The doctrine of precedent plays a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Appeals from state
Supreme Courts may be heard by the High Court. ("The courts | Attorney–General 's Department",
2017)
Doctrine of Precedent
The doctrine of precedent is an important element on judicial decision making in Australia. The
main idea behind the doctrine of precedent is that, when the judge was deciding any cases, must pay
proper respect to past judicial decisions. Sometimes this means that judges are bound to apply the
reasoning of judges in past cases. The moral value of the doctrine of precedent is the way it serves
the political ideal of the rule of law. According to that ideal, institutions of the state, like courts,
should strive to ensure that the law is developed and applied in a consistent and predictable manner,
so that citizens may order their affairs with confidence as to their rights and duties.
The court system in Australia is known as a common law system. In general, a common law system
has trial courts, courts in which cases can be heard on appeal, and a Supreme or High Court. The
lower courts are involved in the day to day hearing of cases, such as minor criminal offences like
shoplifting, disputes between neighbours, or drug possession. The higher courts generally hear
matters of more importance or severity, and the cases that make it all the way to the High Court are
ones that have some importance as a matter of law.
All Australian

Free Speech In Australia Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Stacey Cruz

More from Stacey Cruz (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Free Speech In Australia Essay