Governance Flashcards
(8 cards)
Summarise Mabo vs Queensland?
Recognised existence of native title – High Court removed concept of terra nulius
Overrode Qld legislation which sought to extinguish native title
Native title can be extinguished if land is sold on (no longer crown land)
Federal government then passed Native Title Act in response to High Court decision
Summarise Wik people vs Queensland case?
High Court extended native title concept to:
Pastoral leases do not extinguish native title
Where there is conflict between the rights, pastoral rights take precedence otherwise they coexist
High Court decision led to federal government to make changes to Native Title Act to restrict decision from the High Court (argument that this change was to either improve efficiency of the native title system OR to restrict native title rights)
Summarise NSW vs Commonwealth casse?
Work choices case – work choices was federal legislation that impacted worker’s rights
States argued that the federal government didn’t have the power to make laws in this area
Federal govt argued that s51 included powers to make laws about corporations which Work Choices fell under
High Court found in favour of federal govt
Summarise Roadshow Films v iiNet case?
Copyright case from the time when pirating film and tv was rampant
Argument was that iiNet (an internet provider) was responsible for copyright breaches from it’s customers
High court (on appeal from previous cases) found that iiNet had not breached copyright – the customers were the responsible parties.
Example of High Court developing legal principles through case law
Summarise R v Bayliss & Cullen case?
State abortion case (Qld) that progressed to High Court for decision
Example of High Court using cases from outside jurisdiction (UK) to provide precedent to decision ie., abortion is legal if done to protect the mother
High Court justice stated that clearer laws were needed to determine potential, future cases.
Many years before Qld made it’s laws clearer on abortion
Summarise Re; Kevin case?
High Court case determining whether someone had undergone gender changing surgery can marry someone of their original gender.
Used the court to change precedence – previous case was Corbett v Corbett which defined someone’s gender according to their birth orientation.
New precedent set by this case defined gender as how society viewed them.
Enabled a change to the law without needing to change legislation (the legislation only specified man and woman, it didn’t define what man and woman was).
Case was from 2000 – 17 years later same-sex marriage was legalised – shows that courts can sometimes be relevant before parliament
Summarise Al Masri v Minister for Immigration case?
Case involving indefinite detention of asylum seekers
Federal Court ruled against government stating that it was unlawful to detain someone if there was no possible place for them to be sent to (2003)
High Court in 2004 overturned this decision with another case – federal govt could detain someone indefinitely (slim majority of justices)
Shows that High Court can over-rule lower court’s precedent
Summarise Dietrich v the Queen case?
Original case was a drug smuggling case
Went to High Court on appeal – basis was that Dietrich did not have adequate representation at trial
High Court decision on the fairness of trial procedure and right to a fair trial.
Decision was that cases need to be delayed until an accused is able to be provided fair legal representation (legal aid Victoria would only represent him if he pleaded guilty).
