fbpx
Wikipedia

High Court of Australia

The High Court of Australia is Australia's apex court.[1] It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified within Australia's Constitution.

High Court of Australia
The High Court building, situated on the shore of Lake Burley Griffin, Canberra
Established1903
Jurisdiction Australia
LocationCanberra, Australian Capital Territory
Coordinates35°17′56″S 149°08′09″E / 35.29889°S 149.13583°E / -35.29889; 149.13583Coordinates: 35°17′56″S 149°08′09″E / 35.29889°S 149.13583°E / -35.29889; 149.13583
Composition methodAppointed by Governor-General following nomination by Prime Minister, and advice from Attorney-General
Authorized byAustralian Constitution s 71
Appeals from
Judge term lengthMandatory retirement by age 70
Number of positions7, by statute
Websitehcourt.gov.au
Chief Justice of Australia
CurrentlySusan Kiefel
Since30 January 2017 (2017-01-30)

The High Court was established following passage of the Judiciary Act 1903. It derives its authority from Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, which vests it responsibility for the judicial power of the Commonwealth. Important legal instruments pertaining to the High Court include the Judiciary Act 1903 and the High Court of Australia Act 1979.[2][3]

Its bench is composed of seven justices, including a Chief Justice, currently Susan Kiefel. Justices of the High Court are appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister and are appointed permanently until their mandatory retirement at age 70, unless they retire earlier.

Typically, the court operates by receiving applications for appeal from parties in a process called 'special leave'. If a party's application is accepted, the court will proceed to a full hearing, usually with oral and written submissions from both parties. After conclusion of the hearing, the result is decided by the court. The 'special leave' process does not apply in situations where the court elects to exercise its original jurisdiction; however, the court typically delegates its original jurisdiction to Australia's inferior courts.

The court has resided in Canberra since 1980, following the construction of a purpose-built High Court Building, located in the Parliamentary Triangle and overlooking Lake Burley Griffin.[4] Sittings of the court previously rotated between state capitals, particularly Melbourne and Sydney, and the court continues to regularly sit outside Canberra.

Role

The High Court exercises both original and appellate jurisdiction.

Sir Owen Dixon said on his swearing in as Chief Justice of Australia:

"The High Court's jurisdiction is divided in its exercise between constitutional and federal cases which loom so largely in the public eye, and the great body of litigation between man and man, or even man and government, which has nothing to do with the Constitution, and which is the principal preoccupation of the court."[5]

The broad jurisdiction of the High Court means that it has an important role in Australia's legal system.[6]

Original jurisdiction

Its original jurisdiction is determined by section 75 and 76 of Australia's constitution. Section 75 confers original jurisdiction in all matters:

  1. arising under any treaty
  2. affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries
  3. in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party
  4. between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State
  5. in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth.

Section 76 provides that Parliament may confer original jurisdiction in relation to matters:

  1. arising under the constitution or involving its interpretation
  2. arising under any laws made by the Parliament
  3. of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
  4. relating to the same subject matter claimed under the laws of different states.

Constitutional matters, referred to in section 76(i), have been conferred to the High Court by section 30 of the Judiciary Act 1903.[2] Whilst it may seem that the inclusion of constitutional matters in section 76 means that the High Court's original jurisdiction regarding constitutional matters could be removed; In practice, section 75(iii) (suing the Commonwealth) and section 75(iv) (conflicts between states) are broad enough that many constitutional matters would still be within jurisdiction. The original constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is now well established: the Australian Law Reform Commission has described the inclusion of constitutional matters in section 76 rather than section 75 as "an odd fact of history."[7] The 1998 Constitutional Convention recommended an amendment to the constitution to prevent the possibility of the jurisdiction being removed by Parliament. Failure to proceed on this issue suggests that it was considered highly unlikely that Parliament would ever take this step.

The word 'matter' in section 75 and section 76 has been understood to mean that the High Court is unable to give merely advisory opinions.[8]

Appellate jurisdiction

The court is empowered by section 73 of the Constitution to hear appeals from the Supreme Courts of the States and Territories; as well as any court exercising federal jurisdiction.[Note 1] It may also hear appeals of decisions made in an exercise of its own original jurisdiction.[Note 2]

The High Court's appellate jurisdiction is limited by the Judiciary Act, which requires 'special leave' to be granted before the hearing of an appeal. Special leave may only be granted where a question of law is raised which is of public importance, involves a conflict between courts or "is in the interests of the administration of justice".

Special leave hearings are typically presided over by a panel of two or three justices of the High Court. Parties are typically limited to an oral submission of 20 minutes, in addition to any written submissions.[9]

Appeals to the Privy Council

Appeals to the United Kingdom's Privy Council was a notable controversy when Australia's constitution was drafted. Section 74 of the constitution as it was put to voters, stated that there would be no appeals to the privy council in any matter involving the Constitution of the Commonwealth or State Government.[Note 3][10]

The section as enacted by the Imperial Parliament was different.[11] It prohibited appeals on constitutional matters, excepting where the High Court certified it appropriate for the appeal to be determined by Privy Council. This occurred only once,[Note 4] and the High Court has said it would never again grant a certificate of appeal.[12]

On non-constitutional matters, the Privy Council regularly heard appeals against High Court decisions. In some cases the Council acknowledged that the Australian common law had developed differently from English law and thus did not apply its own principles.[13][14][15] Other times it followed English authority, and overruled decisions of the High Court.

This arrangement led to tensions between the High Court and the Privy Council. In Parker v R (1964), Owen Dixon CJ led a unanimous judgment rejecting the authority of the House of Lords decision in DPP v Smith, writing: "I shall not depart from the law on this matter as we have long since laid it down in this Court and I think that Smith's case should not be used in Australia as authority at all".[16] The Privy Council overturned this by enforcing the UK precedent upon the High Court the following year.[17]

Thirteen High Court judges have heard cases as part of the Privy Council. Sir Isaac Isaacs is the only judge to have sat on an appeal from the High Court, in 1936 after his retirement as Governor-General.[18] Sir Garfield Barwick insisted on an amendment to Privy Council procedure to allow dissent;[19] however he exercised that only once.[20] The appeals mostly related to decisions from other Commonwealth countries, although they occasionally included appeals from a State Supreme Court.[21][22][23][24]

Abolition of Privy Council appeals

Section 74 allowed parliament to prevent appeals to the Privy Council. It did so in 1968 with the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968, which closed off all appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation.[33] In 1975, the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 was passed, which closed all routes of appeal from the High Court; excepting for those in which a certificate of appeal would be granted by the High Court.[34]

In 1986, with the passing of the Australia Act by both the UK Parliament[35] and the Parliament of Australia (with the request and consent of the Australian States),[36] appeals to the Privy Council from state Supreme Courts were closed off, leaving the High Court as the only avenue of appeal. In 2002, Chief Justice Murray Gleeson said that the "combined effect" of the legislation and the announcement in Kirmani "has been that s 74 has become a dead letter, and what remains of s 74 after the legislation limiting appeals to the Privy Council will have no further effect".[37]

Appellate jurisdiction for Nauru

Following an agreement between Nauru and Australia signed on 6 September 1976, the High Court became Nauru's apex court.[Note 5] It was empowered to hear appeals from the Supreme Court of Nauru in both criminal and civil cases, but not constitutional matters.[38] There were a total of five appeals to the High Court under this agreement in the first 40 years of its operation. In 2017, however, this jumped to 13 appeals, most relating to asylum seekers.[39] At the time some legal commentators argued that this appellate jurisdiction sat awkwardly with the High Court's other responsibilities, and ought be renegotiated or repealed.[40][41] Anomalies included the need to apply Nauruan law and customary practice, and that special leave hearings were not required.[39]

Nauruan politicians[Note 6] had said publicly that the Nauru government was unhappy about these arrangements.[42] Of particular concern was a decision of the High Court in October 2017, which quashed an increase in sentence imposed upon political protestors by the Supreme Court of Nauru.[39][43] The High Court had remitted the case to the Supreme Court "differently constituted, for hearing according to law".[43]

On Nauru's 50th anniversary of independence, Baron Waqa declared to parliament that "[s]everance of ties to Australia's highest court is a logical step towards full nationhood and an expression of confidence in Nauru's ability to determine its own destiny".[39] Justice Minister David Adeang said that an additional reason for cutting ties was the cost of appeals to the High Court.[44] Nauru then exercised an option under its agreement with Australia to end its appellate arrangement with 90 days notice. The option was exercised on 12 December 2017 and the High Court's jurisdiction ended on 12 March 2018.[42] The termination did not become publicly known until after the Supreme Court had reheard the case of the protesters and had again imposed increased sentences.[45]

History

Pre-establishment

Following Earl Grey's 1846 proposal to federate the colonies, an 1849 report from the Privy Council suggested a national court be created.[46] In 1856, the Governor of South Australia, Richard MacDonnell, suggested to the Government of South Australia that they consider establishing a court to hear appeals from the Supreme Courts in each colony. In 1860 the South Australian Parliament passed legislation encouraging MacDonnell to put the idea to the other colonies. However, only Victoria considered the proposal.[47]

At a Melbourne inter-colonial conference held in 1870, the idea of an inter-colonial court was again raised. A Royal Commission was established in Victoria to investigate options for establishing such a court, and a draft bill was put forward. This draft bill, however, completely excluded appeals to the Privy Council, causing a reaction in London which prevented any serious attempt to implement the bill through the British Imperial Parliament.[47]

Another draft bill was proposed in 1880 for the establishment of an Australasian Court of Appeal. The proposed court would consist of one judge from each of the colonial Supreme Courts, who would serve one-year terms.[Note 7][47] However, the proposed court allowed for appeals to the Privy Council, which was disliked by some of the colonies, and the bill was abandoned.

Constitutional conventions

The idea of a federal Supreme Court was raised during the Constitutional Conventions of the 1890s. A proposal for a Supreme Court of Australia was included in an 1891 draft. It was proposed to enable the court to hear appeals from the State Supreme courts, with appeals to the Privy Council only occurring on assent from the British monarch. It was proposed that the Privy Council be prevented from hearing appeals on constitutional matters.

This draft was largely the work of Sir Samuel Griffith,[48] then the Premier of Queensland. The Attorney-General of Tasmania Andrew Inglis Clark also contributed to the constitution's judicial clauses. Clark's most significant contribution was to give the court its own constitutional authority, ensuring a separation of powers. The original formulation of Griffith, Barton and Kingston provided only that the parliament could establish a court.[46]

 
Andrew Inglis Clark, prominent contributor to the clauses about the High Court in the Constitution of Australia.

The draft was later amended at various conventions.[Note 8] In Adelaide the court's proposed name was changed to be the 'High Court of Australia'.

Many people opposed the idea of the new court completely replacing the Privy Council. Commercial interests, particularly subsidiaries of British companies preferred to operate under the unified jurisdiction of the British courts, and petitioned the conventions to that effect.[48] Others argued that Australian judges were of a poorer quality than those of the English, and than the inevitable divergence in law that would occur without the oversight of the Privy Council; would put the legal system at risk.[46]

Some politicians (e.g. George Dibbs) supported a retention of Privy Council supervision; whereas others, including Alfred Deakin, supported the design of the court as it was.[48] Inglis Clark took the view that the possibility of divergence was a good thing, for the law could adapt appropriately to Australian circumstances.[46] Despite this debate, the draft's judicial sections remained largely unchanged.

After the draft had been approved by the electors of the colonies, it was taken to London in 1899 for the assent of the British Imperial Parliament. The issue of Privy Council appeals remained a sticking point however; with objections made by Secretary of State for the Colonies, Joseph Chamberlain, the Chief Justice of South Australia, Sir Samuel Way, and Samuel Griffith, among others.[15] In October 1899, Griffith made representations to Chamberlain soliciting suggestions from British ministers for alterations to the draft, and offered alterations of his own.[15] Indeed, such was the effect of these and other representations that Chamberlain called for delegates from the colonies to come to London to assist with the approval process, with a view to their approving any alterations that the British government might see fit to make; delegates were sent, including Deakin, Barton and Charles Kingston, although they were under instructions that they would never agree to changes.[15]

After intense lobbying both in Australia and in the United Kingdom, the Imperial Parliament finally approved the draft constitution. The draft as passed included an alteration to section 74, in a compromise between the two sides. It allowed for a general right of appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council, but the Parliament of Australia could make laws restricting this avenue. In addition, appeals in inter se[Note 9] matters were not as of right, but had to be certified by the High Court.[15]

Formation of the court

 
The first Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Samuel Griffith, is administered the judicial oath at the first sitting of the High Court, in the Banco Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, 6 October 1903.

The High Court was not immediately established after Australia came into being. Some members of the First Parliament, including Sir John Quick, then one of the leading legal experts in Australia, opposed legislation to set up the court. Even H. B. Higgins, who was himself later appointed to the court, objected to setting it up, on the grounds that it would be impotent while Privy Council appeals remained, and that in any event there was not enough work for a federal court to make it viable.[48]

The then Attorney-General Alfred Deakin introduced the Judiciary Bill to the House of Representatives in 1902. Prior efforts had been continually delayed by opponents in the parliament, and the success of the bill is generally attributed to Deakin's passion and persistence.[46] Deakin proposed that the court be composed of five judges, specially selected to the court. Opponents instead proposed that the court should be made up of state Supreme Court justices, taking turns to sit on the High Court on a rotation basis, as had been mooted at the Constitutional Conventions a decade before.[49] Deakin eventually negotiated amendments with the opposition, reducing the number of judges from five to three, and eliminating financial benefits such as pensions.

At one point, Deakin threatened to resign as Attorney-General due to the difficulties he faced.[46] In his three and a half hour second reading speech to the House of Representatives, Deakin said:

The federation is constituted by distribution of powers, and it is this court which decides the orbit and boundary of every power... It is properly termed the keystone of the federal arch... The statute stands and will stand on the statute-book just as in the hour in which it was assented to. But the nation lives, grows and expands. Its circumstances change, its needs alter, and its problems present themselves with new faces. [The High Court] enables the Constitution to grow and be adapted to the changeful necessities and circumstances of generation after generation that the High Court operates.[50]

Deakin's friend, painter Tom Roberts, who viewed the speech from the public gallery, declared it Deakin's "magnum opus".[46] The Judiciary Act 1903 was finally passed on 25 August 1903, and the first three justices, Chief Justice Sir Samuel Griffith and Justices Sir Edmund Barton and Richard O'Connor, were appointed on 5 October of that year. On 6 October, the court held its first sitting in the Banco Court in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Early years

On 12 October 1906, the size of the High Court was increased to five justices, and Deakin appointed H. B. Higgins and Isaac Isaacs to the High Court. Following a court-packing attempt by the Labor Prime Minister Andrew Fisher In February 1913, the bench was increased again to a total to seven. Charles Powers and Albert Bathurst Piddington were appointed. These appointments generated an outcry, however, and Piddington resigned on 5 April 1913 after serving only one month as High Court justice.[51]

 
The court's home between 1928 and 1980, the purpose-built courtroom in Little Bourke Street, Melbourne.

The High Court continued its Banco location in Melbourne until 1928, until a dedicated courtroom was built in Little Bourke Street, next to the Supreme Court of Victoria. That space provided the court's Melbourne sitting place and housed the court's principal registry until 1980.[52] The court also sat regularly in Sydney, sharing space in the Criminal Courts of Darlinghurst Courthouse, before a dedicated courtroom was constructed next door in 1923.[53]

 
The annexe to the Criminal Court in Darlinghurst, the court's home in Sydney.

The court travelled to other cities across the country, where it would use facilities of the respective Supreme Courts. Deakin had envisaged that the court would sit in many different locations, so as to truly be a federal court. Shortly after the court's creation, Chief Justice Griffith established a schedule for sittings in state capitals: Hobart in February, Brisbane in June, Perth in September, and Adelaide in October. It has been said that Griffith established this schedule because those were the times of year he found the weather most pleasant in each city.

The tradition of special sittings remains to this day, although they are dependent on the court's caseload. There are annual sittings in Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane for up to a week each year, and sittings in Hobart occur once every few years. Sittings outside of these special occurrences are conducted in Canberra.

The court's operations were marked by various anomalies during World War II. The Chief Justice, Sir John Latham, served from 1940 to 1941 as Australia's first ambassador to Japan; however, his activities in that role were limited by a pact Japan had entered with the Axis powers prior to his arrival in Tokyo.[54] Owen Dixon was also absent for several years of his appointment, while serving as Australia's minister to the United States in Washington.[55] Sir George Rich acted as Chief Justice during Latham's absence.

Post-war period

 
The bench in 1952, shortly before Chief Justice Latham's retirement. Back, left to right, Fullagar, Webb, Williams & Kitto. Front, left to right, Dixon, Latham & McTiernan.

From 1952, with the appointment of Sir Owen Dixon as Chief Justice, the court entered a period of stability. After World War II, the court's workload continued to grow, particularly from the 1960s onwards, putting pressures on the court.[56] Sir Garfield Barwick, who was Attorney-General from 1958 to 1964, and from then until 1981 Chief Justice, proposed that more federal courts be established, as permitted under the Constitution. In 1976 the Federal Court of Australia was established, with a general federal jurisdiction, and in more recent years the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court have been set up to reduce the court's workload in specific areas.

In 1968, appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation were barred. In 1986, with the passage of the Australia Acts direct appeals to the Privy Council from state Supreme Courts were also closed off.

The life tenure of High Court Justices was ended in 1977. A national referendum in May 1977 approved the Constitution Alteration (Retirement of Judges) Act (Cth), which upon its commencement on 29 July 1977 amended section 72 of the Constitution so as require that all Justices appointed from then on must retire on attaining the age of 70 years.[57][58]

The High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth), which commenced on 21 April 1980, gave the High Court power to administer its own affairs and prescribed the qualifications for, and method of appointment of, its Justices.[57][3]

Legal history

Historical periods of the High Court are commonly denoted by reference to the Chief Justice of the time. It ought be noted however, that the Chief Justice is not always the most influential figure on the Court.[Note 10][59]

 
Chief Justice Griffith

Griffith court: 1903–1919

The first Court under Chief Justice Griffith laid the foundations of Australia's constitutional law. The court was conscious of its position as Australia's new court of appeal, and made efforts to establish its authority at the top of Australia's court hierarchy. In Deakin v Webb (1904)[60] It criticised the Victorian Supreme Court for following a Privy Council decision about the Constitution of Canada instead of its own authority.[47]

In its early years Griffith and other federalists on the bench were dominant. Their decisions were occasionally at odds with nationalist judges such as Sir Isaac Isaacs and H. B. Higgins in 1906. With the death of Justice Richard O'Connor, in 1912; the nationalists achieved majority and Griffith's influence began to decline.[61]

The early constitutional law decisions of the Griffith court was influenced by US Constitutional law.[Note 11]

An important doctrine peculiar to the Griffith court was that of the Reserved State powers.[Note 12] Under this doctrine, the Commonwealth parliament's legislative powers were to be interpreted narrowly; so as to avoid intruding on areas of power traditionally exercised by the State Parliaments prior to federation.[62] Anthony Mason has noted that this doctrine probably helped smooth the transition to a federal system of government and "by preserving a balance between the constituent elements of the Australian federation, probably conformed to community sentiment, which at that stage was by no means adjusted to the exercise of central power."[61]

Griffith and Sir Edmund Barton were frequently consulted by the States' governors-general, including on the exercise of the reserve powers.[63]

 
Sir Isaac Isaacs, Justice from 1906 and Chief Justice from 1930 to 1931

Knox, Isaacs and Gavan Duffy courts: 1919–1935

Knox Court

Adrian Knox became Chief Justice on 18 October 1919. Justice Edmund Barton died soon after, leaving no original members. During the Knox Court, Justice Isaacs Isaacs had strong influence.[64]

Under the Knox Court the Engineers case was decided, ending the Reserved State powers doctrine. The decision had lasting significance for the federal balance in Australia's political arrangements. Another significant decision was Roche v Kronheimer, in which the court relied upon the defence power to uphold federal legislation seeking to implement Australia's obligations under the Treaty of Versailles.[Note 13]

Isaacs Court

Sir Isaac Isaacs was Chief Justice for only forty-two weeks; he left the court to be appointed Governor-General. He was ill for most of his term, and few significant cases were decided in this time.[64]

Duffy Court

Sir Frank Gavan Duffy was Chief Justice for four years from 1931; but he was already 78 when appointed to the position. He was not influential, and only participated in 40% of the cases during his tenure. For the most part he gave short judgements, or joined in the judgements of his colleagues. His frequent absence resulted in many tied decisions which have no lasting value as precedent.[65]

Important cases of this time include:

Latham court: 1935–1952

 
John Latham, as Deputy Prime Minister prior to appointment.

John Latham was elevated to Chief Justice in 1935. His tenure is most notable for the court's interpretation of wartime legislation, and the subsequent transition back to peace.[66]

Most legislation was upheld as enabled by the defence power.[Note 17] The Curtin Labor government's legislation was rarely successfully challenged, with the court recognizing a necessity that the defence power permit the federal government to govern strongly.

The court allowed for the establishment of a national income tax scheme in the First Uniform Tax case, and upheld legislation declaring the pacifist Jehovah's Witnesses denomination to be a subversive organisation.[Note 18]

Following the war, the court reigned in the scope of the defence power. It struck down several key planks of the Chifley Labor government's reconstruction program, notably an attempt to nationalise the banks in the Bank Nationalisation case (1948),[67] and an attempt to establish a comprehensive medical benefits scheme in the First Pharmaceutical Benefits case (1945).[68]

Other notable cases of the era include:

Dixon court: 1952–1964

 
Owen Dixon

Owen Dixon was appointed Chief Justice in 1952, after 23 years as a Justice on the court.

During his tenure the court experienced what some have described as a 'Golden Age'. Dixon had strong influence on the court during this period. The court experienced a marked increase in the number of joint judgements, many of which were led by Dixon. The era has also been noted for the presence of generally good relations among the court's judges.[69]

Notable decisions of the Dixon court include:

During Dixon's time, the court came to adopt by majority several of the views he had expressed in minority years prior.[69]

Barwick court: 1964–1981

 
Garfield Barwick

Garfield Barwick was appointed Chief Justice in 1964.

Among other things, the Barwick court is known for controversially deciding several cases on tax avoidance and tax evasion, almost always deciding against the taxation office. Led by Barwick himself in most judgments, the court distinguished between avoidance (legitimately minimising one's tax obligations) and evasion (illegally evading obligations). The decisions effectively nullified the anti-avoidance legislation and led to the proliferation of avoidance schemes in the 1970s, a result which drew much criticism upon the court.[70]

Notable decisions of the Barwick Court include:

Gibbs court: 1981–1987

Sir Harry Gibbs was appointed as Chief Justice in 1981.

Among the Gibbs court's notable jurisprudence is an interpretive expansion of the Commonwealth's legislative powers.[74] Scholars have also noted a tendency away from the traditions of legalism and conservatism that characterised the Dixon and Barwick courts.[74]

Notable decisions of the court include:

 
Anthony Mason

Mason court: 1987–1995

Sir Anthony Mason became Chief Justice in 1987.

The Mason court is known for being one of the most legally liberal benches of the court.[75] It was a notably stable court, with the only change in its bench being the appointment of McHugh following Wilson's retirement.

Some of the decisions of the court in this time were politically controversial.[Note 33] Scholars have noted that the Mason court has tended to receive 'high praise and stringent criticism in equal measure'.[76]

Notable decisions of the court include:

This era is also notable for originating Australia's implied freedom of political communication jurisprudence; through the cases ACT v Cth and Theophanous.

Brennan court: 1995–1998

Gerard Brennan succeeded Mason in 1995.

The court experienced many changes in members and significant cases in this three year period.[77]

Notable decisions of the court include:

 
Murray Gleeson

Gleeson court: 1998–2008

Murray Gleeson was appointed Chief Justice in 1998. The Gleeson Court has been regarded as a relatively conservative period of the court's history.[78]

Notable decisions of the court include:

 
Robert French

French court: 2008–2017

Robert French was appointed Chief Justice in September 2008.

Notable decisions of the French court include:

 
Susan Kiefel in 2011

Kiefel court: January 2017 – Present

Susan Kiefel was appointed Chief Justice in January 2017.

Legal scholars have noted a shift in judicial style within the Kiefel court to one that attempts broad consensus.[80] The frequency of dissenting judgements has decreased; and there have been relatively fewer decisions of a 4–3 split. Extrajudicially, Kiefel has expressed sympathy for judicial practices that maximise consensus and minimise dissent.[81]

Additionally, it has been noted that Kiefel, Keane, and Bell frequently deliver a joint judgement when a unanimous consensus is not reached; often resulting in their decisions being determinative of the majority. This recent practice of the court has been criticized by the scholar Jeremy Gans, with comparisons drawn to the 'Four Horsemen' era of the US Supreme Court.[80]

Notable decisions of the Kiefel court include:

Appointment process, composition, and working conditions

Appointment process

High Court Justices are appointed by the Governor-General in Council.[86] The advice of the Council typically consists of the advice of the Prime Minister, assisted by the Attorney-General for Australia. Advice from the Attorney-General is legally required by implication, because since 1979 the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth has been required by statute to consult the Attorneys-General of the States (but not the Territories).[87] Some reformers have advocated for States to have a determinative role.[88]

Originally, no particular qualifications for appointment to the High Court were required by the Constitution or by statute. The only constitutional requirement is still, since 1977, that the appointee be under the compulsory retirement age of 70.[89] Further qualifications were introduced by statute in 1979: that an appointee be a judge of a federal, state or territory court; or have been an Australian legal practitioner for at least five years.[90][91] Unlike members of the Parliament, it is not necessary to be an Australian Citizen and a member of the Court may be a dual citizen.[92]

The appointment process has been relatively uncontroversial.[Note 49] This has, however, been due in part to the opacity of the process. There is no procedure for application, the only definite criteria are the minimal criteria above, and nothing is publicly known until an appointee is announced. Appointment to federal courts was extensively formalised in 2007, except for the High Court, and those reforms were reversed by the next federal government. Some recent Attorneys-General have stated that they were consulting widely—to include, for instance, Australian Women Lawyers, the National Association of Commonwealth Legal Centres and the heads of Australian law schools.[93] However, the nature of the Attorney-General's consultations remains almost wholly discretionary.

Some appointments to the High Court have displayed clear political influence. Three early Justices had been conservative politicians prior to their appointment as Chief Justice;[Note 50][94] and Justices Evatt, McTiernan, and Murphy were all Labor party politicians at some stage in their careers prior to being appointed to the High Court by a Labor prime minister.[95]

Composition

The High Court has seven Justices—the Chief Justice and six others.

As of 2022 the High Court has had 44 Justices, twelve of whom have been Chief Justice.[96]

Name State Date appointed Mandatory retirement Appointing
Governor-General
Nominating
Prime Minister
Previous posting(s) Education
Susan Kiefel AC
(Chief Justice)
Qld 30 January 2017
(as Chief Justice)
4 September 2007
(as Justice)
17 January 2024 Peter Cosgrove (as Chief Justice)
Michael Jeffery (as Justice)
Malcolm Turnbull (Liberal, as Chief Justice)
John Howard (Liberal, as Justice)
Supreme Court of Queensland
Federal Court of Australia
Barristers' Admissions Board
University of Cambridge
Stephen Gageler AC NSW 9 October 2012 5 July 2028 Quentin Bryce Julia Gillard (Labor) Solicitor-General of Australia Australian National University
Harvard University
Michelle Gordon AC Vic 9 June 2015 19 November 2034 Peter Cosgrove Tony Abbott (Liberal) Federal Court of Australia University of Western Australia
James Edelman WA 30 January 2017 9 January 2044 Peter Cosgrove Malcolm Turnbull (Liberal) Supreme Court of Western Australia
Federal Court of Australia
University of Western Australia
Murdoch University
University of Oxford
Simon Steward Vic 1 December 2020[97] 9 January 2039[98] David Hurley Scott Morrison (Liberal) Federal Court of Australia University of Melbourne
Jacqueline Gleeson NSW 1 March 2021 6 March 2036 David Hurley Scott Morrison (Liberal) Federal Court of Australia University of Sydney
Jayne Jagot NSW 17 October 2022 2035[99] David Hurley Anthony Albanese (Labor) Federal Court of Australia
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
Macquarie University
University of Sydney

Initial composition

 
The first bench of the High Court: Barton, Griffith and O'Connor seated, with court officials in the background. Photo taken at the first sitting of the court on 6 October 1903.

The first High Court bench consisted of three justices: Samuel Griffith, Edmund Barton, and Richard O'Connor.[100]

According to the contemporary press, among those considered and overlooked were Henry Higgins, Isaac Isaacs, Andrew Clark, John Downer, Josiah Symon, and George Wise.[101]

Barton and O'Connor were both members of the federal parliament's government bench. Each appointee had participated in the drafting of Australia's constitution. All three have been described as relatively conservative justices for the time, and were strongly influenced by law of the United States in their constitutional jurisprudence.[101]

Expansion of the court

In 1906 at the request of the Justices, two seats were added to the bench; with Isaacs and Higgins being appointed.

After O'Connor's death in 1912, an amendment was made to the Judiciary Act expanding the bench to seven. However, one of these seats was left vacant for most of the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s.

Following Isaacs' retirement in 1931, his seat was left empty and an amendment to the Judiciary Act reduced the number of seats to six. This, however, led to some decisions being split three-all.[102]

With the appointment of Justice Webb in 1946, the court returned to seven seats; and since then the court has had a full bench of seven Justices.[103]

Historical demographics

The vast majority of the High Court's fifty-six appointees have been men. Seven women have been appointed in the court's history.

The first female appointee to the bench was Mary Gaudron, second Susan Crennan. Three Justices on the current bench are female: Justices Kiefel, Gordon, and Gleeson. As of October 2022, there is a female majority for the first time, since the retirement of Patrick Keane and his replacement by Jayne Jagot.[104]

In 2017, Justice Kiefel became the first woman to be appointed Chief Justice.[105]

Michael Kirby was the first openly gay justice of the Court. He was replaced by Virginia Bell, who is the first person on the bench to identify as a lesbian.[106]

Twenty-eight appointees have been residents of New South Wales, twenty-five of which graduated from Sydney Law School. Sixteen have come from Victoria, eight from Queensland, and four from Western Australia. No resident of South Australia, Tasmania, or any of the Territories has ever been appointed to the bench.

The majority of Justices have been of Protestant backgrounds, with a smaller number of a Catholic background. Two Jewish members have been appointed, Sir Isaac Isaacs and James Edelman,[107] making them the only members of the court to have a faith background other than Christianity. However, many justices have refrained from commenting publicly upon their religious views.

Almost all judges on the High Court have 'taken silk' in some form prior to their appointment, in the form of appointment to King's Counsel (KC), Queen's Counsel (QC) or Senior Counsel (SC). The exceptions are Starke, McTiernan, Webb, Walsh, Kirby, French, Edelman and Jagot.

While thirteen historical justices of the court have previously served in a Parliament; no parliamentarian has been appointed to the Court since Lionel Murphy in 1975.

Working conditions

Salaries are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. The regular justices receive $551,880, while the Chief justice receives $608,150.[108][109][110] High Court judicial compensation is constitutionally protected from decrease during appointment.[111]

The court typically sits for two weeks for each calendar month of the year, excepting for January and July in which no sitting days are held.[112]

Judicial associates

Each judge engages associates for assistance in exercising their functions. The usual practice is to engage two associates simultaneously for a one-year term. Additionally, the Chief Justice is assisted by a legal research officer employed by the court library.

Associates have varying responsibilities; typically their work involves legal research, assistance in preparation for oral arguments, tipping in court during oral argument, editing judgments and assisting with extrajudicial functions, such as speechwriting.[113] Associates are typically recruited after having graduated from an Australian law school with grades at or near the top of their class.[114] Hundreds of applications for associate positions are received by the High Court annually.[114]

Many High Court associates have gone on to illustrious careers. Examples of former associates include Adrienne Stone and Nicola Roxon.

Three High Court justices served as associates prior to their elevation to the bench: Aickin to Dixon, Gageler to Mason, and Edelman to Toohey.[115]

Facilities

Building

The High Court of Australia building is located on the shore of Lake Burley Griffin in Canberra's Parliamentary Triangle. The High Court was designed between 1972 and 1974 by the Australian architect Christopher Kringas (1936–1975), a director of the firm Edwards Madigan Torzillo and Briggs. The building was constructed from 1975 to 1980. Its international architectural significance is recognised by the Union of International Architects register of 'Architectural Heritage of the 20th Century'. It received the Australian Institute of Architects 'Canberra Medallion' in 1980 and the award for 'Enduring Architecture' in 2007. The High Court was added to the Commonwealth Heritage List in 2004.[4]

Online

The High Court makes itself generally available to the public through its own website.[116] Judgment Alerts, available on the Court's website and by email with free subscription, provide subscribers with notice of upcoming judgments (normally a week beforehand) and, almost immediately after the delivery of a major judgment, with a brief summary of it (normally not more than one page). All of the Court's judgments, as well as transcripts of its hearings since 2009 and other materials, are made available, free of charge, through the Australasian Legal Information Institute. The Court has recently established on its website an "eresources" page, containing for each case its name, keywords, mentions of relevant legislation and a link to the full judgment; these links go to the original text from 2000 onward, scanned texts from 1948 to 1999 and facsimiles from the Commonwealth Law Reports for their first 100 volumes (1903 to 1959); there are also facsimiles of some unreported judgments (1906–2002).[117] Since October 2013, audio-visual recordings of full-court hearings held in Canberra have been available on its website.[118]

Gallery

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Examples of courts exercising federal jurisdiction include the Federal Court of Australia, and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
  2. ^ e.g. such as a decision made by a single justice of the High Court exercising its original jurisdiction
  3. ^ Excepting for situations in which the controversy involved the interests of some other dominion
  4. ^ In Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) [1912] HCA 94, (1912) 15 CLR 182 The High Court was equally divided prior to certification being granted
  5. ^ an amendment to Nauru's constitution was made to allow this (section 57)
  6. ^ such as the former Justice Minister Matthew Batsiua
  7. ^ New Zealand, which was at the time also considering joining the Australian colonies in federation, was also to be a participant in the new court.
  8. ^ In Adelaide in 1897, in Sydney later the same year and in Melbourne in early 1898
  9. ^ (matters concerning the boundary between and limits of the powers of the Commonwealth and the powers of the states)
  10. ^ For example; Isaacs J was the primary force in the Knox Court, while his own tenure as Chief Justice saw Dixon J emerge as the Court's leading jurist
  11. ^ e.g. In the case of D'Emden v Pedder, which involved the application of Tasmanian stamp duty to a federal official's salary, the court adopted the doctrine of implied immunity of instrumentalities which had been established in the United States Supreme Court case of McCulloch v. Maryland
  12. ^ The concept was developed in such cases as Peterswald v Bartley (1904), R v Barger (1908) and the Union Label case (1908).
  13. ^ Higgins opted to rely upon the external affairs power; making this the first instance where a judge attempted to rely upon the external affairs power to implement an international treaty in Australia
  14. ^ which considered The NSW Premier Jack Lang's attempt at abolishing the NSW Legislative Council
  15. ^ which upheld federal legislation compelling the Lang government to repay its loans
  16. ^ which examined legal ethics and the treatment of Indigenous people before the Australian justice system
  17. ^ e.g. Andrews v Howell (1941) and de Mestre v Chisholm (1944).
  18. ^ see: Jehovah's Witnesses case
  19. ^ In which the court struck down Menzies Liberal government legislation banning the Communist Party of Australia
  20. ^ which developed the criminal defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact
  21. ^ presaged an expansive interpretation of the external affairs power, by upholding the implementation of an air navigation treaty
  22. ^ In which the applicability of the separation of powers in protecting the judiciary from interference was firmly asserted
  23. ^ In which the continued existence of the federal government's wartime income tax scheme was upheld as constitutional
  24. ^ a case that marked the beginning of the modern interpretation of the corporations power; which had been interpreted narrowly since 1909. It established that the federal parliament could exercise the power to regulate at least the trading activities of corporations. Earlier interpretations had allowed only the regulation of conduct or transactions with the public
  25. ^ upholding legislation asserting sovereignty over the territorial sea
  26. ^ Which concerned whether legislation allowing for the mainland territories to be represented in the Parliament of Australia was valid
  27. ^ concerning the validity of the Family Law Act 1975
  28. ^ a case relating to the historic 1974 joint sitting of the Parliament of Australia
  29. ^ In which the court held 4:3 that the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 was validly supported by s51(xxix)
  30. ^ In which the court held that federal environmental legislation interfering with a Tasmanian dam construction was validly supported by s51(xxix)
  31. ^ In which the court expanded on the doctrines of natural justice and procedural fairness
  32. ^ concerning the botched ASIS exercise at the Sheraton Hotel in Melbourne
  33. ^ Especially Mabo
  34. ^ Known for resolving an interpretive controversy regarding s92 of the Constitution; a section pertaining to free trade. Prior to Cole v Whitfield, the High Court was plagued with litigation on this section.
  35. ^ In which the court established a de facto constitutional requirement that legal aid be provided to defendants in serious criminal trials
  36. ^ In which it was found that native title was recognized by Australia's common law
  37. ^ regarding the validity of the War Crimes Act 1945
  38. ^ regarding the disputed election of Phil Cleary
  39. ^ In which the court invalidated a New South Wales tobacco licensing scheme, reining in the licensing scheme exception to the prohibition on states levying excise duties, contained in Section 90 of the Constitution
  40. ^ Known for the persona designata doctrine
  41. ^ Known for establishing the 'Kable Doctrine'
  42. ^ An important case within Australia's implied freedom of political communication jurisprudence
  43. ^ on whether statutory leases extinguish native title rights
  44. ^ In which the court struck down legislation vesting state jurisdiction in the Federal Court
  45. ^ See: 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis
  46. ^ In which the Court held that expenditure for the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey had been approved by Parliament and was the collection of "statistical information" that could be conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
  47. ^ Release of this decision revealed the 'Lawyer X' scandal and the use of the criminal barrister Nicola Gobbo as a secret informant by the Victorian Police to the Australian public which lead to a Royal Commission
  48. ^ In which the court decided that Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders could not be considered "alien" to Australia, and so the Commonwealth Government's power to deport "aliens" under Section 51 of the Australian Constitution, did not apply to them
  49. ^ Especially in comparison to the appointment process of the United States. See: US Supreme Court confirmation hearings
  50. ^ Knox, Latham, and Barwick

References

  1. ^ "Courts". Australian Bureau of Statistics. 24 May 2012. from the original on 25 September 2020. Retrieved 4 May 2013. The High Court of Australia is the highest court of appeal
  2. ^ a b Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).
  3. ^ a b High Court of Australia Act 1979, from the original on 2 May 2012, retrieved 23 March 2012 (Cth).
  4. ^ a b "High Court of Australia, King Edward Tce, Parkes, ACT, Australia (Place ID 105557)". Australian Heritage Database. Australian Government. 22 June 2004. Retrieved 20 May 2020.
  5. ^ Dixon, Owen (1952). "Address on being sworn in as Chief Justice". Commonwealth Law Reports. 85: XIII. Not online.
  6. ^ Bennett, J. M. (1980). "Foreword by Sir Garfield Barwick". Keystone of the Federal Arch. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. ISBN 0-642-04866-5.
  7. ^ Australian Law Reform Commission. "The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth". Australian Legal Information Institute. from the original on 20 September 2006. Retrieved 19 March 2006.
  8. ^ In Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts /20.html [1921 ] HCA 20, (1921) 29 CLR 257, at 265.
  9. ^ "High Court of Australia". Courts. Queensland Government. 31 October 2013. from the original on 22 August 2016. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
  10. ^ See for example " Australasian Federation Enabling Act 1899 No 2 (NSW)" (PDF). NSW Parliamentary Council's Office. (PDF) from the original on 14 November 2016. Retrieved 14 November 2016.
  11. ^ "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp)" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 8 May 2018. Retrieved 14 November 2016.
  12. ^ Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No 2) /27.html [1985 ] HCA 27, (1985) 159 CLR 461.
  13. ^ Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren /21.html [1967 ] HCA 21, (1967) 117 CLR 221.
  14. ^ Viro v The Queen /9.html [1978 ] HCA 9, (1978) 141 CLR 88.
  15. ^ a b c d e Gleeson, M (2002). "The Birth, Life and Death of Section 74" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 11 October 2016. Retrieved 14 November 2016.
  16. ^ Parker v The Queen [1963] HCA 14.
  17. ^ Parker v The Queen [1964] UKPC 16, [1964] AC 1369; /1.html [1964 ] UKPCHCA 1, (1964) 111 CLR 665 (23 March 1964), Privy Council (on appeal from NSW, Australia).
  18. ^ a b Payne v The Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (Australia) [1936] UKPC 45, [1936] AC 497]
  19. ^ Gleeson, M (2008). "The Privy Council – An Australian Perspective" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 11 October 2016. Retrieved 14 November 2016.
  20. ^ Her Majesty's Attorney General for Guyana v Nobrega (Guyana) [1969] UKPC 24
  21. ^ a b Brunton v The Acting Commissioner of Stamp Duties for the State of New South Wales (New South Wales) [1913] UKPC 28, [1913] AC 747
  22. ^ a b The Municipal Council of Sydney v Campbell (New South Wales) [1924] UKPC 101, [1925] AC 338
  23. ^ a b Caratti Holding Co Pty Ltd v Zampatti (Western Australia) [1978] UKPC 24
  24. ^ a b The Corporation of the Director of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement v Donald Peinkinna (Queensland) [1978] UKPC 1
  25. ^ Odonkor v Kole (Gold Coast Colony) [1915] UKPC 34
  26. ^ The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Presidency v The Bombay Trust Corporation, Limited (Bombay) [1936] UKPC 53
  27. ^ Kariapper v S S Wijesinha (Ceylon) [1967] UKPC 20
  28. ^ Peiris v Appu (Ceylon) [1968] UKPC 5, [1968] AC 869
  29. ^ Her Majesty's Attorney-General for Dominica v Shillingford (Dominica) [1970] UKPC 15
  30. ^ Tek v The Public Prosecutor (Malaysia) [1972] UKPC 10
  31. ^ Ramcharan v The Queen (Trinidad and Tobago) [1972] UKPC 9, [1973] AC 414
  32. ^ Chin v The Collector of Stamp Duties (Malaysia) [1981] UKPC 22
  33. ^ Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 (Cth) 20 December 2016 at the Wayback Machine, which ended all appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation
  34. ^ Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 (Cth) 16 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine, which prohibited almost all types of appeal from the High Court.
  35. ^ "Australia Act 1986". www.legislation.gov.uk. from the original on 15 November 2020. Retrieved 12 April 2020.
  36. ^ "Australia Act 1986". www.legislation.gov.au. from the original on 8 August 2020. Retrieved 12 April 2020.
  37. ^ Gleeson, Murray (14 June 2002). "The Birth, Life and Death of Section 74". Samuel Griffith Society. from the original on 20 November 2019. Retrieved 10 November 2019.
  38. ^ Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Nauru relating to Appeals to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of Nauru (Cth), 6 September 1976
  39. ^ a b c d Gans, Jeremy (20 February 2018). "News: Court may lose Nauru appellate role". Opinions on High. Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne. from the original on 2 April 2018. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
  40. ^ Australian Law Reform Commission (30 June 2001). "Appeals from the Supreme Court of Nauru to the High Court". The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth: A Review of the Judiciary Act 1903 and Related Legislation (PDF). pp. 341–346. (PDF) from the original on 7 August 2018. Retrieved 2 April 2018. Recommendation 19–1. The Attorney-General should consult with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade regarding the feasibility of terminating the treaty between Australia and Nauru, which provides for certain appeals to be brought to the High Court from the Supreme Court of Nauru. If termination is considered feasible, the Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 should be repealed.
  41. ^ Roberts, Andrew (4 December 2017). "Appeals to Australia from Nauru: The High Court's Unusual Jurisdiction". AusPubLaw. from the original on 2 April 2018. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
  42. ^ a b Wahlquist, Calla (2 April 2018). "Fears for asylum seekers as Nauru moves to cut ties to Australia's high court". The Guardian. from the original on 1 April 2018. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
  43. ^ a b Cecil v Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru); Kepae v Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru); Jeremiah v Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru) [2017] HCA 46 (20 October 2017), High Court
  44. ^ "Nauru Court of Appeal another step to nation's maturity". NauruNews. The Government of the Republic of Nauru. 2 March 2018. from the original on 2 April 2018. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
  45. ^ Clarke, Melissa (2 April 2018). "Justice in Nauru curtailed as Government abolishes appeal system". ABC News. from the original on 2 April 2018. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
  46. ^ a b c d e f g Williams, John (2003). One hundred years of the High Court of Australia. King's College, London. ISBN 1-85507-124-X.
  47. ^ a b c d Bennett, J.M. (1980). Keystone of the Federal Arch. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. ISBN 0-642-04866-5.
  48. ^ a b c d Hull, Crispin (2003). The High Court of Australia: celebrating the centenary 1903–2003. Lawbook Co. ISBN 0-455-21947-8. from the original on 15 May 2017. Retrieved 19 May 2017.
  49. ^ McHugh, Michael (15 February 2002). The High Court and the Oxford Companion to the High Court (Speech). Constitutional Law and Conference Dinner. Botanical Gardens Restaurant. from the original on 27 February 2012. Retrieved 25 February 2012.
  50. ^ Deakin, Alfred (1902). "Judiciary Bill, second reading". Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates. 8: 10967.
  51. ^ "History of the High Court". High Court of Australia. from the original on 15 September 2017. Retrieved 15 September 2017.
  52. ^ . Our Nation's First Capital. Public Records Office Victoria. Archived from the original on 19 August 2008. Retrieved 4 December 2007.
  53. ^ "Ch 3. History of the Origins and Development of the High Court of Australia" (PDF). High Court of Australia. 15 March 2011. p. 19. (PDF) from the original on 9 March 2017. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
  54. ^ Macintyre, Stuart (1986). "Latham, Sir John Greig (1877–1964)". Australian Dictionary of Biography. Vol. 10. National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. pp. 2–6. ISBN 0-522-84327-1. ISSN 1833-7538.
  55. ^ Anderson, Grant; Dawson, Daryl. "Dixon, Sir Owen (1886–1972)". Australian Dictionary of Biography. National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. ISSN 1833-7538. Retrieved 27 March 2020.
  56. ^ "About the High Court – History of the High Court". High Court of Australia. from the original on 21 December 2005. Retrieved 10 December 2005.
  57. ^ a b Australia, c=AU; o=Commonwealth of Australia; ou=The High Court of. "High Court of Australia". www.hcourt.gov.au. from the original on 12 April 2020. Retrieved 12 April 2020.
  58. ^ "Constitution Alteration (Retirement of Judges) Act 1977". ComLaw. from the original on 22 October 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2014.
  59. ^ Dixon, R; Williams, G, eds. (2015). The High Court, the Constitution and Australian Politics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107043664. from the original on 5 February 2021. Retrieved 14 September 2020. at pp. 7-8, 101-103, 118-119.
  60. ^ Deakin v Webb /57.html [1904 ] HCA 57, (1904) 1 CLR 585.
  61. ^ a b Mason, Anthony (2001). "Griffith Court". In Blackshield, Tony; Coper, Michael; Williams, George (eds.). The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-554022-0.
  62. ^ Attorney-General for NSW v Brewery Employees Union of NSW /94.html [1908 ] HCA 94, (1908) 6 CLR 469.
  63. ^ Markwell, Donald (1999). "Griffith, Barton and the early governor-generals: aspects of Australia's constitutional development". Public Law Review.
  64. ^ a b Cowen, Zelman (2001). "Isaac Alfred Isaacs". In Blackshield, Tony; Coper, Michael; Williams, George (eds.). The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-554022-0.
  65. ^ Fricke, Graham (2001). "Gavan Duffy Court". In Blackshield, Tony; Coper, Michael; Williams, George (eds.). The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-554022-0.
  66. ^ Douglas, Roger (2001). "Latham Court". In Blackshield, Tony; Coper, Michael; Williams, George (eds.). The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-554022-0.
  67. ^ Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth (Bank Nationalisation case) /7.html [1948 ] HCA 7, (1948) 76 CLR 1.
  68. ^ Attorney-General (Victoria); Ex rel Dale v Commonwealth (First Pharmaceutical Benefits case) /30.html [1945 ] HCA 30, (1945) 71 CLR 237.
  69. ^ a b Zines, Leslie (2001). "Dixon Court". In Blackshield, Tony; Coper, Michael; Williams, George (eds.). The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-554022-0.
  70. ^ Mason, Anthony (2001). "Barwick Court". In Blackshield, Tony; Coper, Michael; Williams, George (eds.). The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-554022-0.
  71. ^ New South Wales v Commonwealth (Seas and Submerged Lands case) /58.html [1975 ] HCA 58, (1975) 135 CLR 337.
  72. ^ Western Australia v Commonwealth (1975) (First Territory Senators' case) /46.html [1975 ] HCA 46, (1975) 134 CLR 201.
  73. ^ Queensland v Commonwealth (Second Territory Senators' case) /60.html [1977 ] HCA 60, (1977) 139 CLR 585.
  74. ^ a b Twomey, Anne (2001). "Gibbs Court". In Blackshield, Tony; Coper, Michael; Williams, George (eds.). The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-554022-0.
  75. ^ Pierce, Jason Louis (2006), Inside the Mason Court revolution : the High Court of Australia transformed, Carolina Academic Press, ISBN 978-1-59460-061-6
  76. ^ a b Dillon, Michelle; Doyle, John (2001). "Mason Court". In Blackshield, Tony; Coper, Michael; Williams, George (eds.). The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-554022-0.
  77. ^ Jackson, David (2001). "Brennan Court". In Blackshield, Tony; Coper, Michael; Williams, George (eds.). The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-554022-0.
  78. ^ Dixon, R., & Lau, S. (2015). The Gleeson Court and the Howard era: A tale of two conservatives (and isms). In R. Dixon & G. Williams (Eds.), The High Court, the Constitution and Australian Politics (pp. 284-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107445253.015
  79. ^ Pape v Commissioner of Taxation /23.html [2009 ] HCA 23, (2009) 238 CLR 1.
  80. ^ a b "The Great Assenters". Inside Story. 1 May 2018. from the original on 2 June 2021. Retrieved 2 June 2021.
  81. ^ Kiefel, Susan (28 November 2017). Judicial Courage and the Decorum of Dissent (PDF) (Speech). Selden Society Lecture. Supreme Court of Queensland. (PDF) from the original on 31 October 2020. Retrieved 2 June 2021.
  82. ^ Re Canavan /45.html [2017 ] HCA 45. "Judgment summary" (PDF). High Court. 27 October 2017. (PDF) from the original on 27 October 2017. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
  83. ^ Wright, Tony (27 October 2017). "Citizenship verdict: The High Court and the theatre of public execution". Sydney Morning Herald. from the original on 28 October 2017. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
  84. ^ Wilkie v Commonwealth; Australian Marriage Equality v Minister for Finance /40.html [2017 ] HCA 40. "Judgment summary" (PDF). High Court. 28 September 2017. (PDF) from the original on 28 September 2017. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
  85. ^ Davey, Melissa (7 April 2020). "George Pell: Australian cardinal released from jail after high court quashes child sexual abuse conviction". The Guardian. from the original on 7 April 2020. Retrieved 14 April 2020.
  86. ^ Constitution s 72(i).
  87. ^ High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth) s 6.
  88. ^ Durack, Peter (2001). "High Court of Australia Act". In Blackshield, Tony; Coper, Michael; Williams, George (eds.). The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-554022-0.
  89. ^ Constitution s 72.
  90. ^ High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth) s 7.
  91. ^ Evans, Simon (2001). "Appointment of Justices". In Blackshield, Tony; Coper, Michael; Williams, George (eds.). The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-554022-0.
  92. ^ "Fact check: Can High Court justices be dual citizens?". ABC News. 17 May 2018.
  93. ^ Williams, George; Brennan, Sean; Lynch, Andrew, eds. (2018). Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory: Commentary and Materials (7 ed.). Annandale: Federation P. pp. 524–7. ISBN 9781760021511.
  94. ^ Lee, H.P.; Winterton, G, eds. (2003). Australian Constitutional Landmarks. Cambridge University Press. pp. 248–50. ISBN 052183158X.
  95. ^ Hocking, Jenny (2000). Lionel Murphy: a political biography. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. pp. 220–9. ISBN 0521794854.
  96. ^ "Former Justices". High Court. from the original on 7 December 2016. Retrieved 26 October 2016.
  97. ^ Morrison, Scott (28 October 2020). "Press Conference - Australian Parliament House, ACT". Prime Minister of Australia. Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 28 October 2020.
  98. ^ "Federal Court of Australia". Australian Government Directory. Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 28 October 2020.
  99. ^ "Federal Court of Australia | Directory". Commonwealth of Australia. 17 October 2022. Archived from the original on 17 October 2022. Retrieved 17 October 2022.
  100. ^ "History of the High Court". High Court. from the original on 10 November 2016. Retrieved 26 October 2016.
  101. ^ a b Dixon & Williams (eds), Ch 5 The Griffith Court by John M Williams.
  102. ^ Rules for managing a split are provided in Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 23.
  103. ^ Dixon & Williams (eds), pp. 78-80, 118-119, 141-143, 160,161.
  104. ^ Doran, Matthew (29 September 2022). "History made as High Court has majority-female bench after Jayne Jagot appointment". ABC News. Retrieved 29 September 2022.
  105. ^ Williams, George (30 January 2017). "Susan Kiefel: Australia's first female chief justice". The Sydney Morning Herald. from the original on 29 January 2017. Retrieved 30 January 2017.
  106. ^ Pely, Michael (20 December 2008). "NSW Supreme Court farewells High Court appointee Virginia Bell". The Australian. Archived from the original on 15 December 2012. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
  107. ^ Levi, Joshua (1 December 2016). "Judge and Jewry". Australian Jewish News. from the original on 28 July 2019. Retrieved 28 July 2019.
  108. ^ Australia's top judges get a pay rise 21 February 2018 at the Wayback Machine, SBS News, 10 October 2017. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
  109. ^ Determination 2017/09: Judicial and Related Offices – Remuneration and Allowances 22 February 2018 at the Wayback Machine, Remuneration Tribunal. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
  110. ^ Conde, John; Zampatti, Heather. "Remuneration Tribunal (Judicial and Related Offices—Remuneration and Allowances) Determination 2021" (PDF). Renumeration Tribunal. Retrieved 30 March 2022.
  111. ^ "COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 72 Judges' appointment, tenure, and remuneration". classic.austlii.edu.au. from the original on 11 November 2020. Retrieved 2 June 2021.
  112. ^ "HCA SITTINGS 2021" (PDF). hcourt.gov.au. (PDF) from the original on 7 March 2021. Retrieved 2 June 2021.
  113. ^ Young, Katherine. "Open Chambers: High Court Associates and Supreme Court Clerks Compared". from the original on 22 February 2018. Retrieved 21 February 2018. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) (2007) 31(2) Melbourne University Law Review 646.
  114. ^ a b "Applying for an associateship with a Justice of the High Court of Australia". High Court of Australia. from the original on 9 May 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2016.
  115. ^ Feneley, Rick (10 January 2009). "The boy from Sandy Hollow". The Sydney Morning Herald. from the original on 29 December 2017. Retrieved 3 May 2016.
  116. ^ "Home page". High Court of Australia. from the original on 30 June 2018. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  117. ^ "High Court of Australia: eresources". from the original on 26 October 2017. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
  118. ^ "High Court of Australia: Recent AV recordings". from the original on 20 February 2014. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
  119. ^ "The building". High Court of Australia. from the original on 10 February 2018. Retrieved 5 February 2018.

Attribution

  This Wikipedia article was originally based on High Court of Australia, King Edward Tce, Parkes, ACT, Australia, entry number 105557 in the Australian Heritage Database published by the Commonwealth of Australia 2004 under CC-BY 4.0 licence, accessed on 20 May 2020.

Further reading

  • Burnside, Sarah (2011). "Australian Judicial Biography: Past, Present and Future". Australian Journal of Politics and History. 57 (2): 221. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8497.2011.01593.x. ISSN 0004-9522.
  • Carter, David J.; Brown, James; Rahmani, Adel (2016). (PDF). University of New South Wales Law Journal. 39 (2): 1300. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 February 2017.
  • Fricke, Graham (1986). Judges of the High Court. Hawthorn, Victoria: Hutchinson of Australia. ISBN 978-0-09-157150-4.

External links

  • High Court of Australia official website
  • High Court Documentary, a short documentary on the High Court and its building.
  • The Highest Court Documentary film, 1998, DVD. Only film ever permitted to be made of the High Court in session, before video recordings of its proceedings.
  • Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) in ComLaw
  • High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth) in ComLaw

high, court, australia, australia, apex, court, exercises, original, appellate, jurisdiction, matters, specified, within, australia, constitution, coat, arms, australiathe, high, court, building, situated, shore, lake, burley, griffin, canberraestablished1903j. The High Court of Australia is Australia s apex court 1 It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified within Australia s Constitution High Court of AustraliaCoat of Arms of AustraliaThe High Court building situated on the shore of Lake Burley Griffin CanberraEstablished1903Jurisdiction AustraliaLocationCanberra Australian Capital TerritoryCoordinates35 17 56 S 149 08 09 E 35 29889 S 149 13583 E 35 29889 149 13583 Coordinates 35 17 56 S 149 08 09 E 35 29889 S 149 13583 E 35 29889 149 13583Composition methodAppointed by Governor General following nomination by Prime Minister and advice from Attorney GeneralAuthorized byAustralian Constitution s 71Appeals fromSupreme Courts of the States and TerritoriesFederal CourtFederal Circuit and Family CourtJudge term lengthMandatory retirement by age 70Number of positions7 by statuteWebsitehcourt gov auChief Justice of AustraliaCurrentlySusan KiefelSince30 January 2017 2017 01 30 The High Court was established following passage of the Judiciary Act 1903 It derives its authority from Chapter III of the Australian Constitution which vests it responsibility for the judicial power of the Commonwealth Important legal instruments pertaining to the High Court include the Judiciary Act 1903 and the High Court of Australia Act 1979 2 3 Its bench is composed of seven justices including a Chief Justice currently Susan Kiefel Justices of the High Court are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister and are appointed permanently until their mandatory retirement at age 70 unless they retire earlier Typically the court operates by receiving applications for appeal from parties in a process called special leave If a party s application is accepted the court will proceed to a full hearing usually with oral and written submissions from both parties After conclusion of the hearing the result is decided by the court The special leave process does not apply in situations where the court elects to exercise its original jurisdiction however the court typically delegates its original jurisdiction to Australia s inferior courts The court has resided in Canberra since 1980 following the construction of a purpose built High Court Building located in the Parliamentary Triangle and overlooking Lake Burley Griffin 4 Sittings of the court previously rotated between state capitals particularly Melbourne and Sydney and the court continues to regularly sit outside Canberra Contents 1 Role 1 1 Original jurisdiction 1 2 Appellate jurisdiction 1 3 Appeals to the Privy Council 1 3 1 Abolition of Privy Council appeals 1 4 Appellate jurisdiction for Nauru 2 History 2 1 Pre establishment 2 1 1 Constitutional conventions 2 1 2 Formation of the court 2 2 Early years 2 3 Post war period 3 Legal history 3 1 Griffith court 1903 1919 3 2 Knox Isaacs and Gavan Duffy courts 1919 1935 3 2 1 Knox Court 3 2 2 Isaacs Court 3 2 3 Duffy Court 3 3 Latham court 1935 1952 3 4 Dixon court 1952 1964 3 5 Barwick court 1964 1981 3 6 Gibbs court 1981 1987 3 7 Mason court 1987 1995 3 8 Brennan court 1995 1998 3 9 Gleeson court 1998 2008 3 10 French court 2008 2017 3 11 Kiefel court January 2017 Present 4 Appointment process composition and working conditions 4 1 Appointment process 4 2 Composition 4 2 1 Initial composition 4 2 2 Expansion of the court 4 2 3 Historical demographics 4 3 Working conditions 4 3 1 Judicial associates 5 Facilities 5 1 Building 5 2 Online 6 Gallery 7 See also 8 Notes 9 References 9 1 Attribution 10 Further reading 11 External linksRole EditThe High Court exercises both original and appellate jurisdiction Sir Owen Dixon said on his swearing in as Chief Justice of Australia The High Court s jurisdiction is divided in its exercise between constitutional and federal cases which loom so largely in the public eye and the great body of litigation between man and man or even man and government which has nothing to do with the Constitution and which is the principal preoccupation of the court 5 The broad jurisdiction of the High Court means that it has an important role in Australia s legal system 6 Original jurisdiction Edit Its original jurisdiction is determined by section 75 and 76 of Australia s constitution Section 75 confers original jurisdiction in all matters arising under any treatyaffecting consuls or other representatives of other countriesin which the Commonwealth or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth is a partybetween States or between residents of different States or between a State and a resident of another Statein which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth Section 76 provides that Parliament may confer original jurisdiction in relation to matters arising under the constitution or involving its interpretationarising under any laws made by the Parliamentof admiralty and maritime jurisdictionrelating to the same subject matter claimed under the laws of different states Constitutional matters referred to in section 76 i have been conferred to the High Court by section 30 of the Judiciary Act 1903 2 Whilst it may seem that the inclusion of constitutional matters in section 76 means that the High Court s original jurisdiction regarding constitutional matters could be removed In practice section 75 iii suing the Commonwealth and section 75 iv conflicts between states are broad enough that many constitutional matters would still be within jurisdiction The original constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is now well established the Australian Law Reform Commission has described the inclusion of constitutional matters in section 76 rather than section 75 as an odd fact of history 7 The 1998 Constitutional Convention recommended an amendment to the constitution to prevent the possibility of the jurisdiction being removed by Parliament Failure to proceed on this issue suggests that it was considered highly unlikely that Parliament would ever take this step The word matter in section 75 and section 76 has been understood to mean that the High Court is unable to give merely advisory opinions 8 Appellate jurisdiction Edit The court is empowered by section 73 of the Constitution to hear appeals from the Supreme Courts of the States and Territories as well as any court exercising federal jurisdiction Note 1 It may also hear appeals of decisions made in an exercise of its own original jurisdiction Note 2 The High Court s appellate jurisdiction is limited by the Judiciary Act which requires special leave to be granted before the hearing of an appeal Special leave may only be granted where a question of law is raised which is of public importance involves a conflict between courts or is in the interests of the administration of justice Special leave hearings are typically presided over by a panel of two or three justices of the High Court Parties are typically limited to an oral submission of 20 minutes in addition to any written submissions 9 Appeals to the Privy Council Edit Appeals to the United Kingdom s Privy Council was a notable controversy when Australia s constitution was drafted Section 74 of the constitution as it was put to voters stated that there would be no appeals to the privy council in any matter involving the Constitution of the Commonwealth or State Government Note 3 10 The section as enacted by the Imperial Parliament was different 11 It prohibited appeals on constitutional matters excepting where the High Court certified it appropriate for the appeal to be determined by Privy Council This occurred only once Note 4 and the High Court has said it would never again grant a certificate of appeal 12 On non constitutional matters the Privy Council regularly heard appeals against High Court decisions In some cases the Council acknowledged that the Australian common law had developed differently from English law and thus did not apply its own principles 13 14 15 Other times it followed English authority and overruled decisions of the High Court This arrangement led to tensions between the High Court and the Privy Council In Parker v R 1964 Owen Dixon CJ led a unanimous judgment rejecting the authority of the House of Lords decision in DPP v Smith writing I shall not depart from the law on this matter as we have long since laid it down in this Court and I think that Smith s case should not be used in Australia as authority at all 16 The Privy Council overturned this by enforcing the UK precedent upon the High Court the following year 17 Thirteen High Court judges have heard cases as part of the Privy Council Sir Isaac Isaacs is the only judge to have sat on an appeal from the High Court in 1936 after his retirement as Governor General 18 Sir Garfield Barwick insisted on an amendment to Privy Council procedure to allow dissent 19 however he exercised that only once 20 The appeals mostly related to decisions from other Commonwealth countries although they occasionally included appeals from a State Supreme Court 21 22 23 24 Sir Samuel Griffith 21 Sir Edmund Barton 25 Sir Adrian Knox 22 Sir Isaac Isaacs 18 Sir George Rich 26 Sir Garfield Barwick 23 Sir Douglas Menzies 27 Sir Alan Taylor 28 Sir Frank Kitto 29 Sir Edward McTiernan 30 Sir Victor Windeyer 31 Sir Harry Gibbs 24 Sir Ninian Stephen 32 Abolition of Privy Council appeals Edit Section 74 allowed parliament to prevent appeals to the Privy Council It did so in 1968 with the Privy Council Limitation of Appeals Act 1968 which closed off all appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation 33 In 1975 the Privy Council Appeals from the High Court Act 1975 was passed which closed all routes of appeal from the High Court excepting for those in which a certificate of appeal would be granted by the High Court 34 In 1986 with the passing of the Australia Act by both the UK Parliament 35 and the Parliament of Australia with the request and consent of the Australian States 36 appeals to the Privy Council from state Supreme Courts were closed off leaving the High Court as the only avenue of appeal In 2002 Chief Justice Murray Gleeson said that the combined effect of the legislation and the announcement in Kirmani has been that s 74 has become a dead letter and what remains of s 74 after the legislation limiting appeals to the Privy Council will have no further effect 37 Appellate jurisdiction for Nauru Edit Following an agreement between Nauru and Australia signed on 6 September 1976 the High Court became Nauru s apex court Note 5 It was empowered to hear appeals from the Supreme Court of Nauru in both criminal and civil cases but not constitutional matters 38 There were a total of five appeals to the High Court under this agreement in the first 40 years of its operation In 2017 however this jumped to 13 appeals most relating to asylum seekers 39 At the time some legal commentators argued that this appellate jurisdiction sat awkwardly with the High Court s other responsibilities and ought be renegotiated or repealed 40 41 Anomalies included the need to apply Nauruan law and customary practice and that special leave hearings were not required 39 Nauruan politicians Note 6 had said publicly that the Nauru government was unhappy about these arrangements 42 Of particular concern was a decision of the High Court in October 2017 which quashed an increase in sentence imposed upon political protestors by the Supreme Court of Nauru 39 43 The High Court had remitted the case to the Supreme Court differently constituted for hearing according to law 43 On Nauru s 50th anniversary of independence Baron Waqa declared to parliament that s everance of ties to Australia s highest court is a logical step towards full nationhood and an expression of confidence in Nauru s ability to determine its own destiny 39 Justice Minister David Adeang said that an additional reason for cutting ties was the cost of appeals to the High Court 44 Nauru then exercised an option under its agreement with Australia to end its appellate arrangement with 90 days notice The option was exercised on 12 December 2017 and the High Court s jurisdiction ended on 12 March 2018 42 The termination did not become publicly known until after the Supreme Court had reheard the case of the protesters and had again imposed increased sentences 45 History EditPre establishment Edit Following Earl Grey s 1846 proposal to federate the colonies an 1849 report from the Privy Council suggested a national court be created 46 In 1856 the Governor of South Australia Richard MacDonnell suggested to the Government of South Australia that they consider establishing a court to hear appeals from the Supreme Courts in each colony In 1860 the South Australian Parliament passed legislation encouraging MacDonnell to put the idea to the other colonies However only Victoria considered the proposal 47 At a Melbourne inter colonial conference held in 1870 the idea of an inter colonial court was again raised A Royal Commission was established in Victoria to investigate options for establishing such a court and a draft bill was put forward This draft bill however completely excluded appeals to the Privy Council causing a reaction in London which prevented any serious attempt to implement the bill through the British Imperial Parliament 47 Another draft bill was proposed in 1880 for the establishment of an Australasian Court of Appeal The proposed court would consist of one judge from each of the colonial Supreme Courts who would serve one year terms Note 7 47 However the proposed court allowed for appeals to the Privy Council which was disliked by some of the colonies and the bill was abandoned Constitutional conventions Edit Sir Samuel Griffith first Chief Justice of Australia The idea of a federal Supreme Court was raised during the Constitutional Conventions of the 1890s A proposal for a Supreme Court of Australia was included in an 1891 draft It was proposed to enable the court to hear appeals from the State Supreme courts with appeals to the Privy Council only occurring on assent from the British monarch It was proposed that the Privy Council be prevented from hearing appeals on constitutional matters This draft was largely the work of Sir Samuel Griffith 48 then the Premier of Queensland The Attorney General of Tasmania Andrew Inglis Clark also contributed to the constitution s judicial clauses Clark s most significant contribution was to give the court its own constitutional authority ensuring a separation of powers The original formulation of Griffith Barton and Kingston provided only that the parliament could establish a court 46 Andrew Inglis Clark prominent contributor to the clauses about the High Court in the Constitution of Australia The draft was later amended at various conventions Note 8 In Adelaide the court s proposed name was changed to be the High Court of Australia Many people opposed the idea of the new court completely replacing the Privy Council Commercial interests particularly subsidiaries of British companies preferred to operate under the unified jurisdiction of the British courts and petitioned the conventions to that effect 48 Others argued that Australian judges were of a poorer quality than those of the English and than the inevitable divergence in law that would occur without the oversight of the Privy Council would put the legal system at risk 46 Some politicians e g George Dibbs supported a retention of Privy Council supervision whereas others including Alfred Deakin supported the design of the court as it was 48 Inglis Clark took the view that the possibility of divergence was a good thing for the law could adapt appropriately to Australian circumstances 46 Despite this debate the draft s judicial sections remained largely unchanged After the draft had been approved by the electors of the colonies it was taken to London in 1899 for the assent of the British Imperial Parliament The issue of Privy Council appeals remained a sticking point however with objections made by Secretary of State for the Colonies Joseph Chamberlain the Chief Justice of South Australia Sir Samuel Way and Samuel Griffith among others 15 In October 1899 Griffith made representations to Chamberlain soliciting suggestions from British ministers for alterations to the draft and offered alterations of his own 15 Indeed such was the effect of these and other representations that Chamberlain called for delegates from the colonies to come to London to assist with the approval process with a view to their approving any alterations that the British government might see fit to make delegates were sent including Deakin Barton and Charles Kingston although they were under instructions that they would never agree to changes 15 After intense lobbying both in Australia and in the United Kingdom the Imperial Parliament finally approved the draft constitution The draft as passed included an alteration to section 74 in a compromise between the two sides It allowed for a general right of appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council but the Parliament of Australia could make laws restricting this avenue In addition appeals in inter se Note 9 matters were not as of right but had to be certified by the High Court 15 Formation of the court Edit The first Chief Justice of Australia Sir Samuel Griffith is administered the judicial oath at the first sitting of the High Court in the Banco Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria 6 October 1903 The High Court was not immediately established after Australia came into being Some members of the First Parliament including Sir John Quick then one of the leading legal experts in Australia opposed legislation to set up the court Even H B Higgins who was himself later appointed to the court objected to setting it up on the grounds that it would be impotent while Privy Council appeals remained and that in any event there was not enough work for a federal court to make it viable 48 The then Attorney General Alfred Deakin introduced the Judiciary Bill to the House of Representatives in 1902 Prior efforts had been continually delayed by opponents in the parliament and the success of the bill is generally attributed to Deakin s passion and persistence 46 Deakin proposed that the court be composed of five judges specially selected to the court Opponents instead proposed that the court should be made up of state Supreme Court justices taking turns to sit on the High Court on a rotation basis as had been mooted at the Constitutional Conventions a decade before 49 Deakin eventually negotiated amendments with the opposition reducing the number of judges from five to three and eliminating financial benefits such as pensions At one point Deakin threatened to resign as Attorney General due to the difficulties he faced 46 In his three and a half hour second reading speech to the House of Representatives Deakin said The federation is constituted by distribution of powers and it is this court which decides the orbit and boundary of every power It is properly termed the keystone of the federal arch The statute stands and will stand on the statute book just as in the hour in which it was assented to But the nation lives grows and expands Its circumstances change its needs alter and its problems present themselves with new faces The High Court enables the Constitution to grow and be adapted to the changeful necessities and circumstances of generation after generation that the High Court operates 50 Deakin s friend painter Tom Roberts who viewed the speech from the public gallery declared it Deakin s magnum opus 46 The Judiciary Act 1903 was finally passed on 25 August 1903 and the first three justices Chief Justice Sir Samuel Griffith and Justices Sir Edmund Barton and Richard O Connor were appointed on 5 October of that year On 6 October the court held its first sitting in the Banco Court in the Supreme Court of Victoria Early years EditOn 12 October 1906 the size of the High Court was increased to five justices and Deakin appointed H B Higgins and Isaac Isaacs to the High Court Following a court packing attempt by the Labor Prime Minister Andrew Fisher In February 1913 the bench was increased again to a total to seven Charles Powers and Albert Bathurst Piddington were appointed These appointments generated an outcry however and Piddington resigned on 5 April 1913 after serving only one month as High Court justice 51 The court s home between 1928 and 1980 the purpose built courtroom in Little Bourke Street Melbourne The High Court continued its Banco location in Melbourne until 1928 until a dedicated courtroom was built in Little Bourke Street next to the Supreme Court of Victoria That space provided the court s Melbourne sitting place and housed the court s principal registry until 1980 52 The court also sat regularly in Sydney sharing space in the Criminal Courts of Darlinghurst Courthouse before a dedicated courtroom was constructed next door in 1923 53 The annexe to the Criminal Court in Darlinghurst the court s home in Sydney The court travelled to other cities across the country where it would use facilities of the respective Supreme Courts Deakin had envisaged that the court would sit in many different locations so as to truly be a federal court Shortly after the court s creation Chief Justice Griffith established a schedule for sittings in state capitals Hobart in February Brisbane in June Perth in September and Adelaide in October It has been said that Griffith established this schedule because those were the times of year he found the weather most pleasant in each city The tradition of special sittings remains to this day although they are dependent on the court s caseload There are annual sittings in Perth Adelaide and Brisbane for up to a week each year and sittings in Hobart occur once every few years Sittings outside of these special occurrences are conducted in Canberra The court s operations were marked by various anomalies during World War II The Chief Justice Sir John Latham served from 1940 to 1941 as Australia s first ambassador to Japan however his activities in that role were limited by a pact Japan had entered with the Axis powers prior to his arrival in Tokyo 54 Owen Dixon was also absent for several years of his appointment while serving as Australia s minister to the United States in Washington 55 Sir George Rich acted as Chief Justice during Latham s absence Post war period Edit The bench in 1952 shortly before Chief Justice Latham s retirement Back left to right Fullagar Webb Williams amp Kitto Front left to right Dixon Latham amp McTiernan From 1952 with the appointment of Sir Owen Dixon as Chief Justice the court entered a period of stability After World War II the court s workload continued to grow particularly from the 1960s onwards putting pressures on the court 56 Sir Garfield Barwick who was Attorney General from 1958 to 1964 and from then until 1981 Chief Justice proposed that more federal courts be established as permitted under the Constitution In 1976 the Federal Court of Australia was established with a general federal jurisdiction and in more recent years the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court have been set up to reduce the court s workload in specific areas In 1968 appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation were barred In 1986 with the passage of the Australia Acts direct appeals to the Privy Council from state Supreme Courts were also closed off The life tenure of High Court Justices was ended in 1977 A national referendum in May 1977 approved the Constitution Alteration Retirement of Judges Act Cth which upon its commencement on 29 July 1977 amended section 72 of the Constitution so as require that all Justices appointed from then on must retire on attaining the age of 70 years 57 58 The High Court of Australia Act 1979 Cth which commenced on 21 April 1980 gave the High Court power to administer its own affairs and prescribed the qualifications for and method of appointment of its Justices 57 3 Legal history EditHistorical periods of the High Court are commonly denoted by reference to the Chief Justice of the time It ought be noted however that the Chief Justice is not always the most influential figure on the Court Note 10 59 Chief Justice Griffith Griffith court 1903 1919 Edit The first Court under Chief Justice Griffith laid the foundations of Australia s constitutional law The court was conscious of its position as Australia s new court of appeal and made efforts to establish its authority at the top of Australia s court hierarchy In Deakin v Webb 1904 60 It criticised the Victorian Supreme Court for following a Privy Council decision about the Constitution of Canada instead of its own authority 47 In its early years Griffith and other federalists on the bench were dominant Their decisions were occasionally at odds with nationalist judges such as Sir Isaac Isaacs and H B Higgins in 1906 With the death of Justice Richard O Connor in 1912 the nationalists achieved majority and Griffith s influence began to decline 61 The early constitutional law decisions of the Griffith court was influenced by US Constitutional law Note 11 An important doctrine peculiar to the Griffith court was that of the Reserved State powers Note 12 Under this doctrine the Commonwealth parliament s legislative powers were to be interpreted narrowly so as to avoid intruding on areas of power traditionally exercised by the State Parliaments prior to federation 62 Anthony Mason has noted that this doctrine probably helped smooth the transition to a federal system of government and by preserving a balance between the constituent elements of the Australian federation probably conformed to community sentiment which at that stage was by no means adjusted to the exercise of central power 61 Griffith and Sir Edmund Barton were frequently consulted by the States governors general including on the exercise of the reserve powers 63 Sir Isaac Isaacs Justice from 1906 and Chief Justice from 1930 to 1931 Knox Isaacs and Gavan Duffy courts 1919 1935 Edit Knox Court Edit Adrian Knox became Chief Justice on 18 October 1919 Justice Edmund Barton died soon after leaving no original members During the Knox Court Justice Isaacs Isaacs had strong influence 64 Under the Knox Court the Engineers case was decided ending the Reserved State powers doctrine The decision had lasting significance for the federal balance in Australia s political arrangements Another significant decision was Roche v Kronheimer in which the court relied upon the defence power to uphold federal legislation seeking to implement Australia s obligations under the Treaty of Versailles Note 13 Isaacs Court Edit Sir Isaac Isaacs was Chief Justice for only forty two weeks he left the court to be appointed Governor General He was ill for most of his term and few significant cases were decided in this time 64 Duffy Court Edit Sir Frank Gavan Duffy was Chief Justice for four years from 1931 but he was already 78 when appointed to the position He was not influential and only participated in 40 of the cases during his tenure For the most part he gave short judgements or joined in the judgements of his colleagues His frequent absence resulted in many tied decisions which have no lasting value as precedent 65 Important cases of this time include Attorney General New South Wales v Trethowan Note 14 The First State Garnishee case Note 15 Tuckiar v The King Note 16 Latham court 1935 1952 Edit John Latham as Deputy Prime Minister prior to appointment John Latham was elevated to Chief Justice in 1935 His tenure is most notable for the court s interpretation of wartime legislation and the subsequent transition back to peace 66 Most legislation was upheld as enabled by the defence power Note 17 The Curtin Labor government s legislation was rarely successfully challenged with the court recognizing a necessity that the defence power permit the federal government to govern strongly The court allowed for the establishment of a national income tax scheme in the First Uniform Tax case and upheld legislation declaring the pacifist Jehovah s Witnesses denomination to be a subversive organisation Note 18 Following the war the court reigned in the scope of the defence power It struck down several key planks of the Chifley Labor government s reconstruction program notably an attempt to nationalise the banks in the Bank Nationalisation case 1948 67 and an attempt to establish a comprehensive medical benefits scheme in the First Pharmaceutical Benefits case 1945 68 Other notable cases of the era include The Communist Party case Note 19 Proudman v Dayman Note 20 R v Burgess Ex parte Henry Note 21 Dixon court 1952 1964 Edit Owen Dixon Owen Dixon was appointed Chief Justice in 1952 after 23 years as a Justice on the court During his tenure the court experienced what some have described as a Golden Age Dixon had strong influence on the court during this period The court experienced a marked increase in the number of joint judgements many of which were led by Dixon The era has also been noted for the presence of generally good relations among the court s judges 69 Notable decisions of the Dixon court include The Boilermakers case Note 22 Second Uniform Tax case Note 23 During Dixon s time the court came to adopt by majority several of the views he had expressed in minority years prior 69 Barwick court 1964 1981 Edit Garfield Barwick Garfield Barwick was appointed Chief Justice in 1964 Among other things the Barwick court is known for controversially deciding several cases on tax avoidance and tax evasion almost always deciding against the taxation office Led by Barwick himself in most judgments the court distinguished between avoidance legitimately minimising one s tax obligations and evasion illegally evading obligations The decisions effectively nullified the anti avoidance legislation and led to the proliferation of avoidance schemes in the 1970s a result which drew much criticism upon the court 70 Notable decisions of the Barwick Court include Bradley v Commonwealth The Concrete Pipes case Note 24 The Seas and Submerged Lands case 71 Note 25 The First and Second Territory Senators cases 72 73 Note 26 Russell v Russell Note 27 Cormack v Cope Note 28 Victoria v CommonwealthGibbs court 1981 1987 Edit Sir Harry Gibbs was appointed as Chief Justice in 1981 Among the Gibbs court s notable jurisprudence is an interpretive expansion of the Commonwealth s legislative powers 74 Scholars have also noted a tendency away from the traditions of legalism and conservatism that characterised the Dixon and Barwick courts 74 Notable decisions of the court include Koowarta v Bjelke Petersen Note 29 The Tasmanian Dams case Note 30 Kioa v West Note 31 The Chamberlain case A v Hayden Note 32 Anthony Mason Mason court 1987 1995 Edit Sir Anthony Mason became Chief Justice in 1987 The Mason court is known for being one of the most legally liberal benches of the court 75 It was a notably stable court with the only change in its bench being the appointment of McHugh following Wilson s retirement Some of the decisions of the court in this time were politically controversial Note 33 Scholars have noted that the Mason court has tended to receive high praise and stringent criticism in equal measure 76 Notable decisions of the court include Cole v Whitfield Note 34 76 Dietrich v R Note 35 Mabo v Queensland No 2 Note 36 Polyukhovich v Commonwealth Note 37 Sykes v Cleary Note 38 Waltons Stores v MaherThis era is also notable for originating Australia s implied freedom of political communication jurisprudence through the cases ACT v Cth and Theophanous Brennan court 1995 1998 Edit Gerard Brennan succeeded Mason in 1995 The court experienced many changes in members and significant cases in this three year period 77 Notable decisions of the court include Ha v New South Wales Note 39 Grollo v Palmer Note 40 Kable v DPP Note 41 Lange v ABC Note 42 The Wik case Note 43 Murray Gleeson Gleeson court 1998 2008 Edit Murray Gleeson was appointed Chief Justice in 1998 The Gleeson Court has been regarded as a relatively conservative period of the court s history 78 Notable decisions of the court include Al Kateb v Godwin Egan v Willis New South Wales v Commonwealth aka Workchoices R v Tang Re Wakim Ex parte McNally Note 44 Sue v Hill Western Australia v Ward The Yorta Yorta case Robert French French court 2008 2017 Edit Robert French was appointed Chief Justice in September 2008 Notable decisions of the French court include Pape v Commissioner of Taxation 79 Plaintiff M70 Williams v Commonwealth Susan Kiefel in 2011 Kiefel court January 2017 Present Edit Susan Kiefel was appointed Chief Justice in January 2017 Legal scholars have noted a shift in judicial style within the Kiefel court to one that attempts broad consensus 80 The frequency of dissenting judgements has decreased and there have been relatively fewer decisions of a 4 3 split Extrajudicially Kiefel has expressed sympathy for judicial practices that maximise consensus and minimise dissent 81 Additionally it has been noted that Kiefel Keane and Bell frequently deliver a joint judgement when a unanimous consensus is not reached often resulting in their decisions being determinative of the majority This recent practice of the court has been criticized by the scholar Jeremy Gans with comparisons drawn to the Four Horsemen era of the US Supreme Court 80 Notable decisions of the Kiefel court include Re Canavan Note 45 82 83 Wilkie v Commonwealth Note 46 84 AB v CD EF v CD Note 47 Pell v The Queen 85 Love v Commonwealth Note 48 Palmer v Western AustraliaAppointment process composition and working conditions EditMain article List of Justices of the High Court of Australia Appointment process Edit High Court Justices are appointed by the Governor General in Council 86 The advice of the Council typically consists of the advice of the Prime Minister assisted by the Attorney General for Australia Advice from the Attorney General is legally required by implication because since 1979 the Attorney General of the Commonwealth has been required by statute to consult the Attorneys General of the States but not the Territories 87 Some reformers have advocated for States to have a determinative role 88 Originally no particular qualifications for appointment to the High Court were required by the Constitution or by statute The only constitutional requirement is still since 1977 that the appointee be under the compulsory retirement age of 70 89 Further qualifications were introduced by statute in 1979 that an appointee be a judge of a federal state or territory court or have been an Australian legal practitioner for at least five years 90 91 Unlike members of the Parliament it is not necessary to be an Australian Citizen and a member of the Court may be a dual citizen 92 The appointment process has been relatively uncontroversial Note 49 This has however been due in part to the opacity of the process There is no procedure for application the only definite criteria are the minimal criteria above and nothing is publicly known until an appointee is announced Appointment to federal courts was extensively formalised in 2007 except for the High Court and those reforms were reversed by the next federal government Some recent Attorneys General have stated that they were consulting widely to include for instance Australian Women Lawyers the National Association of Commonwealth Legal Centres and the heads of Australian law schools 93 However the nature of the Attorney General s consultations remains almost wholly discretionary Some appointments to the High Court have displayed clear political influence Three early Justices had been conservative politicians prior to their appointment as Chief Justice Note 50 94 and Justices Evatt McTiernan and Murphy were all Labor party politicians at some stage in their careers prior to being appointed to the High Court by a Labor prime minister 95 Composition Edit The High Court has seven Justices the Chief Justice and six others As of 2022 update the High Court has had 44 Justices twelve of whom have been Chief Justice 96 vte Name State Date appointed Mandatory retirement AppointingGovernor General NominatingPrime Minister Previous posting s EducationSusan Kiefel AC Chief Justice Qld 30 January 2017 as Chief Justice 4 September 2007 as Justice 17 January 2024 Peter Cosgrove as Chief Justice Michael Jeffery as Justice Malcolm Turnbull Liberal as Chief Justice John Howard Liberal as Justice Supreme Court of QueenslandFederal Court of Australia Barristers Admissions BoardUniversity of CambridgeStephen Gageler AC NSW 9 October 2012 5 July 2028 Quentin Bryce Julia Gillard Labor Solicitor General of Australia Australian National UniversityHarvard UniversityMichelle Gordon AC Vic 9 June 2015 19 November 2034 Peter Cosgrove Tony Abbott Liberal Federal Court of Australia University of Western AustraliaJames Edelman WA 30 January 2017 9 January 2044 Peter Cosgrove Malcolm Turnbull Liberal Supreme Court of Western Australia Federal Court of Australia University of Western Australia Murdoch UniversityUniversity of OxfordSimon Steward Vic 1 December 2020 97 9 January 2039 98 David Hurley Scott Morrison Liberal Federal Court of Australia University of MelbourneJacqueline Gleeson NSW 1 March 2021 6 March 2036 David Hurley Scott Morrison Liberal Federal Court of Australia University of SydneyJayne Jagot NSW 17 October 2022 2035 99 David Hurley Anthony Albanese Labor Federal Court of AustraliaLand and Environment Court of New South Wales Macquarie UniversityUniversity of SydneyInitial composition Edit The first bench of the High Court Barton Griffith and O Connor seated with court officials in the background Photo taken at the first sitting of the court on 6 October 1903 The first High Court bench consisted of three justices Samuel Griffith Edmund Barton and Richard O Connor 100 According to the contemporary press among those considered and overlooked were Henry Higgins Isaac Isaacs Andrew Clark John Downer Josiah Symon and George Wise 101 Barton and O Connor were both members of the federal parliament s government bench Each appointee had participated in the drafting of Australia s constitution All three have been described as relatively conservative justices for the time and were strongly influenced by law of the United States in their constitutional jurisprudence 101 Expansion of the court Edit In 1906 at the request of the Justices two seats were added to the bench with Isaacs and Higgins being appointed After O Connor s death in 1912 an amendment was made to the Judiciary Act expanding the bench to seven However one of these seats was left vacant for most of the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s Following Isaacs retirement in 1931 his seat was left empty and an amendment to the Judiciary Act reduced the number of seats to six This however led to some decisions being split three all 102 With the appointment of Justice Webb in 1946 the court returned to seven seats and since then the court has had a full bench of seven Justices 103 Historical demographics Edit The vast majority of the High Court s fifty six appointees have been men Seven women have been appointed in the court s history Mary Gaudron left with PM Julia Gillard GG Quentin Bryce AG Nicola Roxon in 2011The first female appointee to the bench was Mary Gaudron second Susan Crennan Three Justices on the current bench are female Justices Kiefel Gordon and Gleeson As of October 2022 there is a female majority for the first time since the retirement of Patrick Keane and his replacement by Jayne Jagot 104 In 2017 Justice Kiefel became the first woman to be appointed Chief Justice 105 Michael Kirby was the first openly gay justice of the Court He was replaced by Virginia Bell who is the first person on the bench to identify as a lesbian 106 Twenty eight appointees have been residents of New South Wales twenty five of which graduated from Sydney Law School Sixteen have come from Victoria eight from Queensland and four from Western Australia No resident of South Australia Tasmania or any of the Territories has ever been appointed to the bench The majority of Justices have been of Protestant backgrounds with a smaller number of a Catholic background Two Jewish members have been appointed Sir Isaac Isaacs and James Edelman 107 making them the only members of the court to have a faith background other than Christianity However many justices have refrained from commenting publicly upon their religious views Almost all judges on the High Court have taken silk in some form prior to their appointment in the form of appointment to King s Counsel KC Queen s Counsel QC or Senior Counsel SC The exceptions are Starke McTiernan Webb Walsh Kirby French Edelman and Jagot While thirteen historical justices of the court have previously served in a Parliament no parliamentarian has been appointed to the Court since Lionel Murphy in 1975 Working conditions Edit Salaries are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal The regular justices receive 551 880 while the Chief justice receives 608 150 108 109 110 High Court judicial compensation is constitutionally protected from decrease during appointment 111 The court typically sits for two weeks for each calendar month of the year excepting for January and July in which no sitting days are held 112 Judicial associates Edit Each judge engages associates for assistance in exercising their functions The usual practice is to engage two associates simultaneously for a one year term Additionally the Chief Justice is assisted by a legal research officer employed by the court library Associates have varying responsibilities typically their work involves legal research assistance in preparation for oral arguments tipping in court during oral argument editing judgments and assisting with extrajudicial functions such as speechwriting 113 Associates are typically recruited after having graduated from an Australian law school with grades at or near the top of their class 114 Hundreds of applications for associate positions are received by the High Court annually 114 Many High Court associates have gone on to illustrious careers Examples of former associates include Adrienne Stone and Nicola Roxon Three High Court justices served as associates prior to their elevation to the bench Aickin to Dixon Gageler to Mason and Edelman to Toohey 115 Facilities EditBuilding Edit Main article High Court of Australia Building The High Court of Australia building is located on the shore of Lake Burley Griffin in Canberra s Parliamentary Triangle The High Court was designed between 1972 and 1974 by the Australian architect Christopher Kringas 1936 1975 a director of the firm Edwards Madigan Torzillo and Briggs The building was constructed from 1975 to 1980 Its international architectural significance is recognised by the Union of International Architects register of Architectural Heritage of the 20th Century It received the Australian Institute of Architects Canberra Medallion in 1980 and the award for Enduring Architecture in 2007 The High Court was added to the Commonwealth Heritage List in 2004 4 Online Edit The High Court makes itself generally available to the public through its own website 116 Judgment Alerts available on the Court s website and by email with free subscription provide subscribers with notice of upcoming judgments normally a week beforehand and almost immediately after the delivery of a major judgment with a brief summary of it normally not more than one page All of the Court s judgments as well as transcripts of its hearings since 2009 and other materials are made available free of charge through the Australasian Legal Information Institute The Court has recently established on its website an eresources page containing for each case its name keywords mentions of relevant legislation and a link to the full judgment these links go to the original text from 2000 onward scanned texts from 1948 to 1999 and facsimiles from the Commonwealth Law Reports for their first 100 volumes 1903 to 1959 there are also facsimiles of some unreported judgments 1906 2002 117 Since October 2013 audio visual recordings of full court hearings held in Canberra have been available on its website 118 Gallery Edit The No 1 Courtroom used for all cases that require a full bench of seven justices 119 High Court building Entry hallSee also Edit Australia portal Law portal Australian court hierarchy Judiciary Act 1903 Judiciary of Australia Law of Australia List of chief justices of Australia by time in office List of High Court of Australia cases List of justices of the High Court of Australia List of law schools attended by Australian High Court justicesNotes Edit Examples of courts exercising federal jurisdiction include the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia e g such as a decision made by a single justice of the High Court exercising its original jurisdiction Excepting for situations in which the controversy involved the interests of some other dominion In Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Attorney General Cth 1912 HCA 94 1912 15 CLR 182 The High Court was equally divided prior to certification being granted an amendment to Nauru s constitution was made to allow this section 57 such as the former Justice Minister Matthew Batsiua New Zealand which was at the time also considering joining the Australian colonies in federation was also to be a participant in the new court In Adelaide in 1897 in Sydney later the same year and in Melbourne in early 1898 matters concerning the boundary between and limits of the powers of the Commonwealth and the powers of the states For example Isaacs J was the primary force in the Knox Court while his own tenure as Chief Justice saw Dixon J emerge as the Court s leading jurist e g In the case of D Emden v Pedder which involved the application of Tasmanian stamp duty to a federal official s salary the court adopted the doctrine of implied immunity of instrumentalities which had been established in the United States Supreme Court case of McCulloch v Maryland The concept was developed in such cases as Peterswald v Bartley 1904 R v Barger 1908 and the Union Label case 1908 Higgins opted to rely upon the external affairs power making this the first instance where a judge attempted to rely upon the external affairs power to implement an international treaty in Australia which considered The NSW Premier Jack Lang s attempt at abolishing the NSW Legislative Council which upheld federal legislation compelling the Lang government to repay its loans which examined legal ethics and the treatment of Indigenous people before the Australian justice system e g Andrews v Howell 1941 and de Mestre v Chisholm 1944 see Jehovah s Witnesses case In which the court struck down Menzies Liberal government legislation banning the Communist Party of Australia which developed the criminal defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact presaged an expansive interpretation of the external affairs power by upholding the implementation of an air navigation treaty In which the applicability of the separation of powers in protecting the judiciary from interference was firmly asserted In which the continued existence of the federal government s wartime income tax scheme was upheld as constitutional a case that marked the beginning of the modern interpretation of the corporations power which had been interpreted narrowly since 1909 It established that the federal parliament could exercise the power to regulate at least the trading activities of corporations Earlier interpretations had allowed only the regulation of conduct or transactions with the public upholding legislation asserting sovereignty over the territorial sea Which concerned whether legislation allowing for the mainland territories to be represented in the Parliament of Australia was valid concerning the validity of the Family Law Act 1975 a case relating to the historic 1974 joint sitting of the Parliament of Australia In which the court held 4 3 that the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 was validly supported by s51 xxix In which the court held that federal environmental legislation interfering with a Tasmanian dam construction was validly supported by s51 xxix In which the court expanded on the doctrines of natural justice and procedural fairness concerning the botched ASIS exercise at the Sheraton Hotel in Melbourne Especially Mabo Known for resolving an interpretive controversy regarding s92 of the Constitution a section pertaining to free trade Prior to Cole v Whitfield the High Court was plagued with litigation on this section In which the court established a de facto constitutional requirement that legal aid be provided to defendants in serious criminal trials In which it was found that native title was recognized by Australia s common law regarding the validity of the War Crimes Act 1945 regarding the disputed election of Phil Cleary In which the court invalidated a New South Wales tobacco licensing scheme reining in the licensing scheme exception to the prohibition on states levying excise duties contained in Section 90 of the Constitution Known for the persona designata doctrine Known for establishing the Kable Doctrine An important case within Australia s implied freedom of political communication jurisprudence on whether statutory leases extinguish native title rights In which the court struck down legislation vesting state jurisdiction in the Federal Court See 2017 18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis In which the Court held that expenditure for the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey had been approved by Parliament and was the collection of statistical information that could be conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics Release of this decision revealed the Lawyer X scandal and the use of the criminal barrister Nicola Gobbo as a secret informant by the Victorian Police to the Australian public which lead to a Royal Commission In which the court decided that Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders could not be considered alien to Australia and so the Commonwealth Government s power to deport aliens under Section 51 of the Australian Constitution did not apply to them Especially in comparison to the appointment process of the United States See US Supreme Court confirmation hearings Knox Latham and BarwickReferences Edit Courts Australian Bureau of Statistics 24 May 2012 Archived from the original on 25 September 2020 Retrieved 4 May 2013 The High Court of Australia is the highest court of appeal a b Judiciary Act 1903 Cth a b High Court of Australia Act 1979 archived from the original on 2 May 2012 retrieved 23 March 2012 Cth a b High Court of Australia King Edward Tce Parkes ACT Australia Place ID 105557 Australian Heritage Database Australian Government 22 June 2004 Retrieved 20 May 2020 Dixon Owen 1952 Address on being sworn in as Chief Justice Commonwealth Law Reports 85 XIII Not online Bennett J M 1980 Foreword by Sir Garfield Barwick Keystone of the Federal Arch Canberra Australian Government Publishing Service ISBN 0 642 04866 5 Australian Law Reform Commission The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth Australian Legal Information Institute Archived from the original on 20 September 2006 Retrieved 19 March 2006 In Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts 20 html 1921 HCA 20 1921 29 CLR 257 at 265 High Court of Australia Courts Queensland Government 31 October 2013 Archived from the original on 22 August 2016 Retrieved 4 August 2016 See for example Australasian Federation Enabling Act 1899 No 2 NSW PDF NSW Parliamentary Council s Office Archived PDF from the original on 14 November 2016 Retrieved 14 November 2016 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 Imp PDF Archived PDF from the original on 8 May 2018 Retrieved 14 November 2016 Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd No 2 27 html 1985 HCA 27 1985 159 CLR 461 Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren 21 html 1967 HCA 21 1967 117 CLR 221 Viro v The Queen 9 html 1978 HCA 9 1978 141 CLR 88 a b c d e Gleeson M 2002 The Birth Life and Death of Section 74 PDF Archived PDF from the original on 11 October 2016 Retrieved 14 November 2016 Parker v The Queen 1963 HCA 14 Parker v The Queen 1964 UKPC 16 1964 AC 1369 1 html 1964 UKPCHCA 1 1964 111 CLR 665 23 March 1964 Privy Council on appeal from NSW Australia a b Payne v The Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation Australia 1936 UKPC 45 1936 AC 497 Gleeson M 2008 The Privy Council An Australian Perspective PDF Archived PDF from the original on 11 October 2016 Retrieved 14 November 2016 Her Majesty s Attorney General for Guyana v Nobrega Guyana 1969 UKPC 24 a b Brunton v The Acting Commissioner of Stamp Duties for the State of New South Wales New South Wales 1913 UKPC 28 1913 AC 747 a b The Municipal Council of Sydney v Campbell New South Wales 1924 UKPC 101 1925 AC 338 a b Caratti Holding Co Pty Ltd v Zampatti Western Australia 1978 UKPC 24 a b The Corporation of the Director of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement v Donald Peinkinna Queensland 1978 UKPC 1 Odonkor v Kole Gold Coast Colony 1915 UKPC 34 The Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay Presidency v The Bombay Trust Corporation Limited Bombay 1936 UKPC 53 Kariapper v S S Wijesinha Ceylon 1967 UKPC 20 Peiris v Appu Ceylon 1968 UKPC 5 1968 AC 869 Her Majesty s Attorney General for Dominica v Shillingford Dominica 1970 UKPC 15 Tek v The Public Prosecutor Malaysia 1972 UKPC 10 Ramcharan v The Queen Trinidad and Tobago 1972 UKPC 9 1973 AC 414 Chin v The Collector of Stamp Duties Malaysia 1981 UKPC 22 Privy Council Limitation of Appeals Act 1968 Cth Archived 20 December 2016 at the Wayback Machine which ended all appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation Privy Council Appeals from the High Court Act 1975 Cth Archived 16 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine which prohibited almost all types of appeal from the High Court Australia Act 1986 www legislation gov uk Archived from the original on 15 November 2020 Retrieved 12 April 2020 Australia Act 1986 www legislation gov au Archived from the original on 8 August 2020 Retrieved 12 April 2020 Gleeson Murray 14 June 2002 The Birth Life and Death of Section 74 Samuel Griffith Society Archived from the original on 20 November 2019 Retrieved 10 November 2019 Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Nauru relating to Appeals to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of Nauru Cth 6 September 1976 a b c d Gans Jeremy 20 February 2018 News Court may lose Nauru appellate role Opinions on High Melbourne Law School The University of Melbourne Archived from the original on 2 April 2018 Retrieved 2 April 2018 Australian Law Reform Commission 30 June 2001 Appeals from the Supreme Court of Nauru to the High Court The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth A Review of the Judiciary Act 1903 and Related Legislation PDF pp 341 346 Archived PDF from the original on 7 August 2018 Retrieved 2 April 2018 Recommendation 19 1 The Attorney General should consult with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade regarding the feasibility of terminating the treaty between Australia and Nauru which provides for certain appeals to be brought to the High Court from the Supreme Court of Nauru If termination is considered feasible the Nauru High Court Appeals Act 1976 should be repealed Roberts Andrew 4 December 2017 Appeals to Australia from Nauru The High Court s Unusual Jurisdiction AusPubLaw Archived from the original on 2 April 2018 Retrieved 2 April 2018 a b Wahlquist Calla 2 April 2018 Fears for asylum seekers as Nauru moves to cut ties to Australia s high court The Guardian Archived from the original on 1 April 2018 Retrieved 2 April 2018 a b Cecil v Director of Public Prosecutions Nauru Kepae v Director of Public Prosecutions Nauru Jeremiah v Director of Public Prosecutions Nauru 2017 HCA 46 20 October 2017 High Court Nauru Court of Appeal another step to nation s maturity NauruNews The Government of the Republic of Nauru 2 March 2018 Archived from the original on 2 April 2018 Retrieved 2 April 2018 Clarke Melissa 2 April 2018 Justice in Nauru curtailed as Government abolishes appeal system ABC News Archived from the original on 2 April 2018 Retrieved 2 April 2018 a b c d e f g Williams John 2003 One hundred years of the High Court of Australia King s College London ISBN 1 85507 124 X a b c d Bennett J M 1980 Keystone of the Federal Arch Canberra Australian Government Publishing Service ISBN 0 642 04866 5 a b c d Hull Crispin 2003 The High Court of Australia celebrating the centenary 1903 2003 Lawbook Co ISBN 0 455 21947 8 Archived from the original on 15 May 2017 Retrieved 19 May 2017 McHugh Michael 15 February 2002 The High Court and the Oxford Companion to the High Court Speech Constitutional Law and Conference Dinner Botanical Gardens Restaurant Archived from the original on 27 February 2012 Retrieved 25 February 2012 Deakin Alfred 1902 Judiciary Bill second reading Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates 8 10967 History of the High Court High Court of Australia Archived from the original on 15 September 2017 Retrieved 15 September 2017 High Court Building Our Nation s First Capital Public Records Office Victoria Archived from the original on 19 August 2008 Retrieved 4 December 2007 Ch 3 History of the Origins and Development of the High Court of Australia PDF High Court of Australia 15 March 2011 p 19 Archived PDF from the original on 9 March 2017 Retrieved 2 April 2017 Macintyre Stuart 1986 Latham Sir John Greig 1877 1964 Australian Dictionary of Biography Vol 10 National Centre of Biography Australian National University pp 2 6 ISBN 0 522 84327 1 ISSN 1833 7538 Anderson Grant Dawson Daryl Dixon Sir Owen 1886 1972 Australian Dictionary of Biography National Centre of Biography Australian National University ISSN 1833 7538 Retrieved 27 March 2020 About the High Court History of the High Court High Court of Australia Archived from the original on 21 December 2005 Retrieved 10 December 2005 a b Australia c AU o Commonwealth of Australia ou The High Court of High Court of Australia www hcourt gov au Archived from the original on 12 April 2020 Retrieved 12 April 2020 Constitution Alteration Retirement of Judges Act 1977 ComLaw Archived from the original on 22 October 2014 Retrieved 3 March 2014 Dixon R Williams G eds 2015 The High Court the Constitution and Australian Politics Cambridge University Press ISBN 9781107043664 Archived from the original on 5 February 2021 Retrieved 14 September 2020 at pp 7 8 101 103 118 119 Deakin v Webb 57 html 1904 HCA 57 1904 1 CLR 585 a b Mason Anthony 2001 Griffith Court In Blackshield Tony Coper Michael Williams George eds The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia South Melbourne Victoria Oxford University Press ISBN 0 19 554022 0 Attorney General for NSW v Brewery Employees Union of NSW 94 html 1908 HCA 94 1908 6 CLR 469 Markwell Donald 1999 Griffith Barton and the early governor generals aspects of Australia s constitutional development Public Law Review a b Cowen Zelman 2001 Isaac Alfred Isaacs In Blackshield Tony Coper Michael Williams George eds The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia South Melbourne Victoria Oxford University Press ISBN 0 19 554022 0 Fricke Graham 2001 Gavan Duffy Court In Blackshield Tony Coper Michael Williams George eds The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia South Melbourne Victoria Oxford University Press ISBN 0 19 554022 0 Douglas Roger 2001 Latham Court In Blackshield Tony Coper Michael Williams George eds The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia South Melbourne Victoria Oxford University Press ISBN 0 19 554022 0 Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth Bank Nationalisation case 7 html 1948 HCA 7 1948 76 CLR 1 Attorney General Victoria Ex rel Dale v Commonwealth First Pharmaceutical Benefits case 30 html 1945 HCA 30 1945 71 CLR 237 a b Zines Leslie 2001 Dixon Court In Blackshield Tony Coper Michael Williams George eds The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia South Melbourne Victoria Oxford University Press ISBN 0 19 554022 0 Mason Anthony 2001 Barwick Court In Blackshield Tony Coper Michael Williams George eds The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia South Melbourne Victoria Oxford University Press ISBN 0 19 554022 0 New South Wales v Commonwealth Seas and Submerged Lands case 58 html 1975 HCA 58 1975 135 CLR 337 Western Australia v Commonwealth 1975 First Territory Senators case 46 html 1975 HCA 46 1975 134 CLR 201 Queensland v Commonwealth Second Territory Senators case 60 html 1977 HCA 60 1977 139 CLR 585 a b Twomey Anne 2001 Gibbs Court In Blackshield Tony Coper Michael Williams George eds The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia South Melbourne Victoria Oxford University Press ISBN 0 19 554022 0 Pierce Jason Louis 2006 Inside the Mason Court revolution the High Court of Australia transformed Carolina Academic Press ISBN 978 1 59460 061 6 a b Dillon Michelle Doyle John 2001 Mason Court In Blackshield Tony Coper Michael Williams George eds The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia South Melbourne Victoria Oxford University Press ISBN 0 19 554022 0 Jackson David 2001 Brennan Court In Blackshield Tony Coper Michael Williams George eds The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia South Melbourne Victoria Oxford University Press ISBN 0 19 554022 0 Dixon R amp Lau S 2015 The Gleeson Court and the Howard era A tale of two conservatives and isms In R Dixon amp G Williams Eds The High Court the Constitution and Australian Politics pp 284 310 Cambridge Cambridge University Press doi 10 1017 CBO9781107445253 015 Pape v Commissioner of Taxation 23 html 2009 HCA 23 2009 238 CLR 1 a b The Great Assenters Inside Story 1 May 2018 Archived from the original on 2 June 2021 Retrieved 2 June 2021 Kiefel Susan 28 November 2017 Judicial Courage and the Decorum of Dissent PDF Speech Selden Society Lecture Supreme Court of Queensland Archived PDF from the original on 31 October 2020 Retrieved 2 June 2021 Re Canavan 45 html 2017 HCA 45 Judgment summary PDF High Court 27 October 2017 Archived PDF from the original on 27 October 2017 Retrieved 27 October 2017 Wright Tony 27 October 2017 Citizenship verdict The High Court and the theatre of public execution Sydney Morning Herald Archived from the original on 28 October 2017 Retrieved 27 October 2017 Wilkie v Commonwealth Australian Marriage Equality v Minister for Finance 40 html 2017 HCA 40 Judgment summary PDF High Court 28 September 2017 Archived PDF from the original on 28 September 2017 Retrieved 27 October 2017 Davey Melissa 7 April 2020 George Pell Australian cardinal released from jail after high court quashes child sexual abuse conviction The Guardian Archived from the original on 7 April 2020 Retrieved 14 April 2020 Constitution s 72 i High Court of Australia Act 1979 Cth s 6 Durack Peter 2001 High Court of Australia Act In Blackshield Tony Coper Michael Williams George eds The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia South Melbourne Victoria Oxford University Press ISBN 0 19 554022 0 Constitution s 72 High Court of Australia Act 1979 Cth s 7 Evans Simon 2001 Appointment of Justices In Blackshield Tony Coper Michael Williams George eds The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia South Melbourne Victoria Oxford University Press ISBN 0 19 554022 0 Fact check Can High Court justices be dual citizens ABC News 17 May 2018 Williams George Brennan Sean Lynch Andrew eds 2018 Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory Commentary and Materials 7 ed Annandale Federation P pp 524 7 ISBN 9781760021511 Lee H P Winterton G eds 2003 Australian Constitutional Landmarks Cambridge University Press pp 248 50 ISBN 052183158X Hocking Jenny 2000 Lionel Murphy a political biography Cambridge Cambridge UP pp 220 9 ISBN 0521794854 Former Justices High Court Archived from the original on 7 December 2016 Retrieved 26 October 2016 Morrison Scott 28 October 2020 Press Conference Australian Parliament House ACT Prime Minister of Australia Commonwealth of Australia Retrieved 28 October 2020 Federal Court of Australia Australian Government Directory Commonwealth of Australia Retrieved 28 October 2020 Federal Court of Australia Directory Commonwealth of Australia 17 October 2022 Archived from the original on 17 October 2022 Retrieved 17 October 2022 History of the High Court High Court Archived from the original on 10 November 2016 Retrieved 26 October 2016 a b Dixon amp Williams eds Ch 5 The Griffith Court by John M Williams Rules for managing a split are provided in Judiciary Act 1903 Cth s 23 Dixon amp Williams eds pp 78 80 118 119 141 143 160 161 Doran Matthew 29 September 2022 History made as High Court has majority female bench after Jayne Jagot appointment ABC News Retrieved 29 September 2022 Williams George 30 January 2017 Susan Kiefel Australia s first female chief justice The Sydney Morning Herald Archived from the original on 29 January 2017 Retrieved 30 January 2017 Pely Michael 20 December 2008 NSW Supreme Court farewells High Court appointee Virginia Bell The Australian Archived from the original on 15 December 2012 Retrieved 2 March 2012 Levi Joshua 1 December 2016 Judge and Jewry Australian Jewish News Archived from the original on 28 July 2019 Retrieved 28 July 2019 Australia s top judges get a pay rise Archived 21 February 2018 at the Wayback Machine SBS News 10 October 2017 Retrieved 21 February 2018 Determination 2017 09 Judicial and Related Offices Remuneration and Allowances Archived 22 February 2018 at the Wayback Machine Remuneration Tribunal Retrieved 21 February 2018 Conde John Zampatti Heather Remuneration Tribunal Judicial and Related Offices Remuneration and Allowances Determination 2021 PDF Renumeration Tribunal Retrieved 30 March 2022 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT SECT 72 Judges appointment tenure and remuneration classic austlii edu au Archived from the original on 11 November 2020 Retrieved 2 June 2021 HCA SITTINGS 2021 PDF hcourt gov au Archived PDF from the original on 7 March 2021 Retrieved 2 June 2021 Young Katherine Open Chambers High Court Associates and Supreme Court Clerks Compared Archived from the original on 22 February 2018 Retrieved 21 February 2018 a href Template Cite journal html title Template Cite journal cite journal a Cite journal requires journal help 2007 31 2 Melbourne University Law Review 646 a b Applying for an associateship with a Justice of the High Court of Australia High Court of Australia Archived from the original on 9 May 2016 Retrieved 2 May 2016 Feneley Rick 10 January 2009 The boy from Sandy Hollow The Sydney Morning Herald Archived from the original on 29 December 2017 Retrieved 3 May 2016 Home page High Court of Australia Archived from the original on 30 June 2018 Retrieved 21 February 2014 High Court of Australia eresources Archived from the original on 26 October 2017 Retrieved 27 October 2017 High Court of Australia Recent AV recordings Archived from the original on 20 February 2014 Retrieved 21 February 2014 The building High Court of Australia Archived from the original on 10 February 2018 Retrieved 5 February 2018 Attribution Edit This Wikipedia article was originally based on High Court of Australia King Edward Tce Parkes ACT Australia entry number 105557 in the Australian Heritage Database published by the Commonwealth of Australia 2004 under CC BY 4 0 licence accessed on 20 May 2020 Further reading EditBurnside Sarah 2011 Australian Judicial Biography Past Present and Future Australian Journal of Politics and History 57 2 221 doi 10 1111 j 1467 8497 2011 01593 x ISSN 0004 9522 Carter David J Brown James Rahmani Adel 2016 Reading the High Court at a Distance Topic Modelling the Legal Subject Matter and Judicial Activity of the High Court of Australia 1903 2015 PDF University of New South Wales Law Journal 39 2 1300 Archived from the original PDF on 19 February 2017 Fricke Graham 1986 Judges of the High Court Hawthorn Victoria Hutchinson of Australia ISBN 978 0 09 157150 4 External links Edit Wikimedia Commons has media related to High Court of Australia High Court of Australia official website High Court Documentary a short documentary on the High Court and its building The Highest Court Documentary film 1998 DVD Only film ever permitted to be made of the High Court in session before video recordings of its proceedings Judiciary Act 1903 Cth in ComLaw High Court of Australia Act 1979 Cth in ComLaw Portals Law Australia Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title High Court of Australia amp oldid 1146129779, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.