Week 7 – Chapter III Commonwealth Constitution Judicial Power PDF

Preview

Summary

Notes for Lectures (Inclusive of readings and personal notes)...

Description

Week 7 – Chapter III Commonwealth Constitution Judicial Power Table of Contents Week 7 – Chapter III Commonwealth Constitution Judicial Power......................................1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................3 Judicial Definition..........................................................................................................................3 Functions that are Judicial in Nature:............................................................................................4 Relevant Legislation for Chap III Judicial Power:...........................................................................4 S71: Judicial Power and Courts..................................................................................................................4 S72: Judges Appointment, Tenure and Remuneration..............................................................................4 S75: Original Jurisdiction of HC..................................................................................................................5 S76: Additional Original Jurisdiction..........................................................................................................5 S77: Power to Define Jurisdiction..............................................................................................................6

Meaning, Nature and Indicia of Chapter III Judicial Power...........................................................6 Huddart Parker and Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1908) 8 CLR 330 (BW 502) (Griffith CJ) – Whether rights relate to life, liberty or property................................................................................................................6 Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 280 ALR 221 (BW 598)...........................................................................7 R v Trade Practices Tribunal; Ex parte Tasmanian Breweries (1970) 123 CLR 361 (BW 601) (Kitto J) – Sets out definition of judicial power..........................................................................................................8 Re Tracy; Ex parte Ryan (1989) 166 CLR 518, 580 per Deane J..................................................................8 Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84, 147 per Gaudron J..........................................................................8 Brandy v HREOC (1995) 183 CLR 245 (BW 604) Deane Dawson Gaudron and McHugh JJ – Difficult to define Judicial power, can’t decide on a common definition....................................................................9 Palmer v Ayres [2017] HCA 5 Gageler J:....................................................................................................9 Precision Data Holdings v Wills (1991) 173 CLR 167 at 188-189 (BW 604)...............................................9 Attorney-General (Cth) v Breckler (1999) 197 CLR 83 (BW 607) – Only courts can exercise judicial power, with some exceptions....................................................................................................................9 Luton v Lessels (2002) 210 CLR 333 (BW 607).........................................................................................10 Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307 per Gleeson CJ (BW 602)........................................................10 Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476 – non-judicial tribunal/authority cannot exercise judicial power.............................................................................................................................11 Attorney-General (Cth) v Alinta (2008) 233 CLR 542 (BW 609)...............................................................11 Albarran v Members of the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board and Another (2007) 234 ALR 618.............................................................................................................................................12 Australian Communications and Media Authority v Today FM (Sydney) Pty Ltd (2015) 317 ALR 279 (BW 610)..................................................................................................................................................12 Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 2 (7 February 2018)...................12

Characteristics of Chapter III Separation of Powers....................................................................13  Judicial Power of the Commonwealth can only be exercised by a Court complying with the requirements of Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution...........................................................13  That Commonwealth cannot confer non-judicial powers (which are not incidental to the exercise of judicial power) on a Chapter III court..................................................................................................13  Judicial power vested in Federal Courts can only be derived from the Commonwealth and not from the States........................................................................................................................................14  Judicial power vested in the High Court in respect of matters in s.75 and s.76 (especially s.75 (iv)) may only be vested in Chapter III courts – Federal or State – under Section 77.....................................15

Exceptions to the Characteristics of Chapter III Separation of Powers........................................16 Persona Designata......................................................................................................................17 Hilton v Wells (1985) 157 CLR 57 (BW 618).............................................................................................17

1

Incompatibility doctrine (the exception to the exception of the Persona Designata rule)...........18 Grollo v Palmer (1995) 184 CLR 348 (BW 622) – see the development of the incompatibility doctrine. HC affirms that issuing a warrant is an administrative function..............................................................18 Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 189 CLR 1 (BW 626) – Reasons for incompatibility here centered around the lack of independence (real or perceived) and the subject of the judges private judgment to the direction and control/authorization and sanction by the minister....................................................................................................................................................20 Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51 (BW 596, 640) (from which the underlying and foundational Kable principle emerges)........................................................................21 North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc v Bradley (2004) 218 CLR 146 at [3], [29], [30].........23 MZXOT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 247 ALR 58..................................................23 Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Te Puia v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 33 (6 September 2017)...........................................................................23 Knight v Victoria [2017] HCA 29 (17 August 2017) – extends beyond the persona designate doctrine. 25

Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) s.74 AA – prevents Adult Parole Board from ordering that a  named prisoner (the plaintiff) be released on parole unless the Board is satisfied among other things – that – in imminent danger of dying, or is seriously incapacitated – and as result – no longer has the physical ability to do harm to any person (s74 AA is argued to substantially impair the integrity of the court)................................................................................................25  Knight – life imprisonment minimum 27 years after pleaded guilty to 7 counts murder 46 counts attempted murder..........................................................................................................25 State Issues and Chapter III Judicial Power.................................................................................26 Underlying and Foundation Principle: Kable...............................................................................26 Kable (1996) Principle: The Constitution demands the institutional integrity of State courts as “courts” and that the potential repositories of federal judicial power be respected...........................................26 NSW v Kable (2013).................................................................................................................................28

Examples and evolution of the application of the underlying and foundational principle from Kable........................................................................................................................................... 28 Baker v The Queen (2004) 210 ALR 1 (BW 677)......................................................................................29 Kirby J in Baker (dissent)..........................................................................................................................30 Fardon v Attorney-General for Queensland (2004) 210 ALR 50 (BW 682)..............................................30 Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307 (BW 692) (constitutionality of control orders when challenged on Chapter III grounds)............................................................................................................................32 Gypsy Jokers Motorcycle Club Inc v Commissioner of Police (2008) 234 CLR 532 (BW 735) – WA supreme court is capable of being vested with Chapter III Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction flows down to state/territory courts because they are part of an integrated system....................................................34 K-Generation Pty Ltd v Licensing Court of South Australia and Commissioner of Police (2009) 237 CLR 501 (BW 738)...........................................................................................................................................36 International Finance Trust Company v New South Wales Crime Commission (2009) 240 CLR 319 (BW 740) – Court actually upholds the Kable principle openly (shift here that strikes down the NSW legislation as going too far and infringing the Chap III Judicial power type issue)..................................38 South Australia v Totani (2009) 242 CLR 1 (BW 745) – HC held that the legislative power of a State does not extend to enacting a law which deprives a court of the State of one of its defining characteristics as a court or impairs one or more of those characteristics.....................................................................40 Wainohu v NSW (2011) 243 CLR 181 (BW 749).......................................................................................43 Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1 (BW 598) – HC ruled that the power for the Supreme Court to make a declaration of inconsistent interpretation is a valid power. This power does not put courts in the position of making laws rather than interpreting them, so therefore does not violate the SOP between the courts and the Parliament that is protected in the Australian constitution......................45 Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd (2013)252 CLR 38 (BW 742) – legislation was saved from incompatibility with the Constitution because it did not interfere with the Supreme Court’s continuing inherent jurisdiction to stay any proceedings “in which practical unfairness becomes manifest”..................................................................................................................................................48

2

Attorney General (NT) v Emmerson (2014) 253 CLR 393 (BW 729) (BW 755) – HC majority upheld the validity of a NT scheme under which the property of a person declared to be drug trafficker can be forfeited...................................................................................................................................................49 Kuczborski v Queensland (2014) 254 CLR 51 (BW 753) – case built upon the case of Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano.........................................................................................................51 North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Ltd v Northern Territory (2015) 256 CLR 569 (BW 391, 755) .................................................................................................................................................................55 Vella and Others v Commissioner of Police (NSW) and Another (6 November 2019)............................57

Concluding Commentary............................................................................................................59

Introduction The main objective of the sometimes inconvenient separation of judicial from executive and legislative powers have long been recognised at the time of federation. It is to ensure that life liberty and property of the subject (are not) in the hands of arbitrary judges, whose decisions are then regulated only by their own opinions, and not by any fundamental principles of law. (per Deane J in Polyukhovich v Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501, 606.) Prof: This goes to the rule of law, principles of legality, separation of powers and the maintenance of a constitutional democracy.  

  

Adherence to the doctrine of separation of judicial power is an essential feature of a government operating under the rule of law. The separation of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive, the political arms of government, is designed to ensure that the judiciary is independent of political pressure, and therefore that cases can be decided in a fair and impartial manner. The doctrine helps to safeguard the individual’s right to a fair trial, and the fair administration of justice. Further, the enforced division of power between the institutions of government guards against the concentration of power that may be harmful to liberty. Who can exercise this power: o The HC has long held that Chap III of the Constitution which deals with the federal judiciary, requires the complete separation of federal judicial power from the exercise of federal legislative or executive power. o Thus, federal judicial power may only be exercised by appropriately constituted courts – Chap III courts. o Federal court may NOT exercise non-judicial power.

Judicial Definition The acknowledged classic definition of “judicial power” in Australia is derived from the judgment of Griffith CJ in Huddart Parker and Co v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330 (at 357): I am of the opinion that the words “judicial power” as used in s 71 of the Constitution mean the power which every sovereign must of necessity have to decide controversies between its subjects, or between itself and its subjects, whether the rights relate to life, liberty or property. The exercise of this power does not begin until some tribunal which has power to give a binding and authoritative decision (whether subject to appeal or not) is called upon to take action.

3

Functions that are Judicial in Nature: 5 functions which are quintessentially judicial in nature: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

declaring the common law, adjudicating and punishing criminal guilt, deciding constitutional validity, reviewing the lawfulness of administrative action and ascertaining the meaning of statutes

Relevant Legislation for Chap III Judicial Power: S71: Judicial Power and Courts The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court to be called the High Court of Australia and in such other federal courts as the Parliament creates, and in such other courts as it invests with federal jurisdiction. The High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice, and so many other justices, not less than two, as the Parliament prescribes. Prof: S71 is the Gateway section of Chap III Judicial Power. It alerts us to the other components of governance in the CTH.  S71 shows that the HC is constitutionally entrenched and it is protected by the referendum mechanism in s128.  Parliament can create other courts and can also vests other courts (such as territory courts) with federal jurisdiction. S72: Judges Appointment, Tenure and Remuneration The Justices of the High Court and of other courts created by the Parliament: (i) (ii)

(iii)

shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council shall not be removed except by the Governor General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity; shall receive such remuneration as the Parliament may fix; but the remuneration shall not be diminished during their continuance in office

The appointment of a Justice of the High Court shall be for a term expiring upon his attaining the age of seventy years, and a person shall not be appointed as a Justice of the High Court if he has attained that age The appointment of a Justice of a court created by the Parliament shall be for a term expiring upon his attaining the age that is, at the time of his appointment, the maximum age for Justices of that court and a person shall not be appointed as a Justice of such a court if he has attained the age that is for the time being the maximum age for justices of that court Subject to this section, the maximum age for Justices of any court created by the Parliament is seventy years The Parliament may make a law fixing an age that is less than seventy years as the

4

maximum age for Justices of a court created by the Parliament and may at any time repeal or amend such a law, but any such repeal or amendment does not affect the term of office of a Justice under an appointment made before the repeal or amendment… (designed to ensure judicial independence) Prof: Protections written into the constitution governing the justices appointment, tenure and remuneration. Removal of a HC Justice has to be shown on the basis of both houses of the government voting. Characteristics of Judicial independence (which allows judges to make decisions in a manner that is uninfluenced by the executive and legislature):  Regular process of appointment by the Governor-general in Council  Substantially high thresholds for a Justice’s removal from office  Non-reduction in remuneration during continuance in office  Appointment to a precise age. S75: Original Jurisdiction of HC In all matters: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

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

the High Court shall have original jurisdiction Prof: Important because it tells us which matters the HC shall have original jurisdiction over. HC has this inherent jurisdiction unless Australians remove it via the s128 referendum. This is an important guarantee of constitutional and political liberty by courts, with the HC being the court to resolve and review CTH actions against officers of CTH and to prescribe the writs of mandamus, prohibition or injunction or issuing declarations. S76: Additional Original Jurisdiction The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation arising under any laws made by the Parliament of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction relating to the same subject matter claimed under the laws of different states

S77: Power to Define Jurisdiction With respect to any of the matters mentioned in the last two sections the Parliament may make laws:

5

(i) (ii) (iii)

defining the j...