Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CCCS Newsletter #35 March 2017
Welcome to the 35th edition of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies newsletter, a guide to news and events at the
Centre and a spotlight for commentary on issues in constitutional law, nationally and globally.
• CCCS:@cccsmelbourne• AdrienneStone:@stone_adrienne• CherylSaunders:@cherylsaunders1• ScottStephenson:@s_m_stephenson• WilliamPartlett:@WPartlett• JeremyGans:@jeremy_gans
• Ourwebsite:law.unimelb.edu.au/cccs
• CentremembersalsoblogatOpinionson High:blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/
• TheIACLBlog:iacl-aidc-blog.org
For the latest most up to date news, follow us on twitter or online
CCCS Newsletter March 2017
Co-Directors’ Report
AlthoughwemightexpectthesummermonthstobeaquietertimeforCCCSmembers,theCentrehasalreadyseenaflurryofactivityinthefirstquarterof2017.InthisourfirstReportasCo-DirectorsoftheCCCS,we’dliketodrawattentiontosomeofthehighlights.
New Members
2017sawthearrivalofseveralnewpostdoctoralfellowsattachedtotheCCCS.AsforeshadowedinourDecember2016newsletter,DrStijnSmethasnowjoinedusasapost-doctoralfellowassociatedwithAdrienneStone’sARCLaureateProjectinConstitutionalLaw.WealsowelcomethenewMelbourneLawSchoolPostdoctoralFellow,DrTomDaly,whocomestousfromtheEdinburghCentreforConstitutionalLawatEdinburghLawSchool,andwhowillworkcloselywiththeConstitutionTransformationNetwork(ConTransNet)inhisresearchonconstitutionaldecay.
Visitors
Thefirstweeksofthe2017academicyearhavealsoseenuswelcomeandbenefitfromthepresenceofanumberofshortandlongertermvisitorstotheCentre.AssociateProfessorIddoPorat(CollegeofLawandBusiness,Israel),whospecialisesinIsraeliandcomparativeconstitutionallawandlegaltheorywithspecialexpertiseinproportionalityreasoning,willspendoverayearwithus,andhasalreadybecomeanenergeticcontributortothelifeoftheCentre.ProfessorAlanPage(Dundee)residedwithusforthemonthofMarch,andgaveustheprivilegeof‘realtime’insightintothepossibleimplicationsofBrexitforScotlandaseventsstartedtounfoldonthatlandscape.OurengagementwiththepubliclawquestionsassociatedwiththecommencementoftheTrumpadministrationintheUnitedStateswasenrichedbyapresentationfromProfessorPeterStrauss(Columbia)intheCCCSSeminarSeries,wherewealsobenefittedfromadiscussionwithMadameJusticeJulieDutil(CourtofAppealofQuebec)abouttheconceptof‘bijuralism’inCanada.
CCCS 2017 Conference
ElsewhereinthisnewsletterweprovidedetailsofthefullprogramofCCCS2017Conference,tobeheldatMelbourneLawSchoolon21July2017.Co-convenedbyAdrienneStoneandScottStephenson,theconferencepromisestobeanexceptionaleventwithhighprofilespeakersdrawnfromacademiaandtheprofessionpoisedtodiscussissuesrangingfromthescopeofnon-statutoryexecutivepowertoproportionalityreasoningtothequestionsraisedbyretrospectivelegislation.Registrationfortheconferenceisnowopen:seedetailsonpage7orontheConferencewebsite.
ThepubliclawissuesofthedayareverymuchpartoflifeatCCCS.Section18CoftheRacial Discrimination Act 1975(Cth)hasbeenoccupyingourtime(alongwithmuchofthe
nationalnewsmedia).CCCSmadeaSubmissiontotheJointParliamentaryCommitteeonHumanRightswhichwasmuchreferredtointheCommittee’sreport.
WewerealsodelightedtolearnofthestellarsuccessofCCCSResearchAssistantsJoshuaQuinn-Watson,LukeChircopandAnnaSaundersintheCommonwealthMoot(seepage1).OurgratitudeandcongratulationsgotoJoshua,LukeandAnnafortheirwonderfulachievementinbringinghomeatitlethatAustraliahasnotheldforadecade
Finally,weinviteallofourreaderstoenjoyourConstitutionalLawUpdate,whichinthiseditionincludessummariesofthelegalchallengetoPresidentTrump’snowwell-known27January2017executiveorder(Washington v Trump),aswellasthemuchawaiteddecisionoftheUKSupremeCourtinR (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
WehopetoseeyouataCCCSeventsoonandespeciallyhopetoseeyouatour2017CCCSConferenceinJuly.
Professor Adrienne Stone
Associate Professor Kristen Rundle
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 1
Commonwealth Moot
TheCCCSconveysitsenthusiasticcongratulationstoCCCSresearchassistantsJoshuaQuinn-Watson,LukeChircopandAnnaSaunderswhorecentlywonthe15thCommonwealthMoot.TheyrepresentedAustraliainthecompetitionandsecuredAustraliatheCommonwealthShieldforthefirsttimesince2007.
TheprestigiousCommonwealthMootisaninitiativeoftheCommonwealthLegalEducationAssociation(CLEA)andtheCommonwealthLawyersAssociation(CLA).ThisyeartheCommonwealthMootwasheldinMelbourneinconjunctionwiththe20thCommonwealthLawConference.
TeamsrepresentingregionsacrosstheworldincludingtheUnitedKingdom,NorthAmerica,AsiaandAfricawerenominatedtocompeteonan‘inviteonly’basis.MostinvitedteamswonentrybywinninglargeregionalmootingcompetitionssuchastheUnitedKingdom’sNationalMootingCompetition,Canada’sGaleCup,andtheAllAfricaHumanRightsMootCompetition.ThemootwasjudgedbyseniorjudgesandadvocatesfromthroughouttheCommonwealth.
Themootprobleminvolvedequitableandcommonlawcauses
ofactionrelatingtobriberyandcorruptioninacross-bordertransaction,aswellaschoiceoflawandpubliclawelements.IttookplaceinacourtwithjurisdictionequivalenttotheUK’sCommercialCourt.
Theteamemergedasfirstseedafterthegeneralrounds,beatCanadainthesemi-finalandbeatIndiainthegrandfinal.ThefinalwasjudgedbyChiefJusticeArchieoftheSupremeCourtofTrinidadandTobago,JusticeArach-AmakooftheSupremeCourtofUganda,andMrWesleyWongSC,theSolicitor-GeneralofHongKong.ThedecisioninfavourofAustraliawasunanimous.
JoshQuinn-Watsonwasnamedbestmooterinthegeneralrounds,andbestmooterinthefinal.LukeChircopwasthesecondrankedmooterinthegeneralrounds.
Betweenthem,thiswasthe13thtimethatthetriohaverepresentedMelbourneLawSchoolatanexternalmoot,eitherascompetitorsorcoaches.TheteamsaidthatmootinghashadanenormousimpactontheirexperienceoftheJDandtheyweredelightedtohaveonelastchancetorepresentMLSbeforetheygraduatethisyear.
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 2
Centre Update
AdrienneStone,Co-director
Presentations
PresentedaseminarwiththeHon.JusticeJulieDutilon‘ProportionalityinPublicLaw:CanadianandAustralianPerspectives’attheFederalCourtofAustraliaon27March2017.
ParticipatedinaWorkshopinHonourofProfessorTomCampbellattheJuliusStoneInstitute,UniversityofSydneyon9February2017.
Publications
KatharineGelberandAdrienneStone,‘Constitutions,GenderandFreedomofExpression:TheLegalRegulationofPornography’,Research Handbook on Gender and Constitutions,HelenIrving(eds),Forthcoming;UniversityofMelbourneLegalStudiesResearchPaperNo.744availableathttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2795432
Submissions to Parliamentary Inquiry
CCCSSubmissiontotheParliamentaryParliamentaryJointCommitteeonHumanrightsInquiryintoFreedomofSpeech(withDrCoelKirkby,JoshuaQuinn-WatsonandAnnaSaunders)on23December2016:http://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/2248619/2016.dec.23.CCCS-Submission-copy.pdf
AppearedbeforetheParliamentaryJointCommitteeonHumanRightson31January2017.ReportoftheCommitteeavailablehere:http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights_inquiries/FreedomspeechAustralia/Report
Kristen Rundle, Co-director
Presentations
Chaired,‘TheChangingFaceofJudicialReview:AUK-AustraliaComparison’,MLS-FederalCourtAustralia‘JudgesinConversation’series,FederalCourtMelbourneRegistry,28March2017.
CommentatortoDrLisaBurtonCrawford(Monash),‘JudicialReviewandtheLimitsofLegislativePower’,MLSLegalTheoryWorkshop,24March2017.
ParticipatedinaWorkshopinHonourofProfessorTomCampbellattheJuliusStoneInstitute,UniversityofSydneyon9February2017.
Affiliations
AppointedtotheBoardofTrustees,LionelMurphyFoundation,December2016.
CherylSaundersAO,Foundation Director
Publications
CherylSaunders,‘TheMeaningsofConcurrency’,inNicoSteytler(ed),Concurrent Powers in Federal Systems: Meaning, Making, Managing (Brill/Nijhoff,2017)12-31
CherylSaunders,‘ExecutivePowerinFederations’in17 Jus Politicum (2017), Thinking about Federalism(s): Beyond the United States Experience,availableat:http://juspoliticum.com/article/Executive-Power-in-Federations-1126.html
Presentations
DeliveredtheKwa Geok Choo public lectureon‘NationalConstitutionsinaTransnationalAge’attheLawSchool,NationalUniversityofSingapore,asKwaGeokChooDis-tinguishedVisitor,9February2017
TaughtasubjectonGlobalComparativeConstitutionalLawattheLawSchool,NationalUniversityofSingapore,30January-17February2017
ParticipatedasaMemberoftheInternationalAdvisoryPanel,LawSchool,NationalUniversityofSingapore,13-15March2017
Deliveredapaperon‘FederalismandBicameralism’ataconferenceonCanadian Federalism and its Future: Actors and Institutions,Montreal,QuebecCity,23-24March2017
MLMTeaching
Taught‘PublicLawandPrivateLaw’withJasonVaruhasfrom1-7March2017
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 3
CentreMembers
Alison Duxbury
Presentations
Booklaunchofco-editedbook(withMatthewGroves),Military Justice in the Modern Age(CambridgeUniversityPress,2016)waslaunchedbyMajorGeneralIanWestwoodAMon11November2016.
Anna Dziedzic
Publications
AnnaDziedzic,‘FromPapertoLivedReality:Gender-ResponsiveConstitutionalImplementation’,International IDEA Discussion Paper 20/2016http://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/paper-lived-reality-gender-responsive-constitutional-implementation
AnnaDziedzic(withCherylSaunders),‘TheMeaningsofConcurrency’inNicoSteytler(ed),Concurrent Powers in Federal Systems: Meaning, Making, Managing (Brill,2017)
Beth Gaze
Publications
BethGazeandBelindaSmith,Equality and Discrimination Law in Australia: An Introduction(CambridgeUniversityPress,2017)
Pip Nicholson
Presentations
Co-hostedThe Death Penalty in Coparative Perspective: Regional Laws and Practice Conference,aDFATfundedConferenceatHoChiMinhCityUniversityofLaw,Vietnamon5March2017
Presented‘DeathPenaltyinAsia:AnOverview’,atThe Death Penalty in Coparative Perspective: Regional Laws and Practice Conference,atHoChiMinhCityUniversityofLaw,Vietnamon5March2017
Co-chairedsessionson‘DeathPenaltyAbolitioninVietnam:Possibilities’and‘ChallengesandJudicialDiscretionandDeathPenaltyReforminChina:DrugTransportationandHomicideasExemplarsofTwoReformPaths’atThe Death Penalty in Coparative Perspective: Regional Laws and Practice Conference,atHoChiMinhCityUniversityofLaw,Vietnamon5March2017
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 4
William Partlett
Publications
WilliamPartlett,‘UnderstandingtheOriginsofRussia’sConstitutionalSolutiontotheSyrianConflict’,Constitution Net.http://www.constitutionnet.org/news/understanding-origins-russias-constitutional-solution-syrian-conflict
WilliamPartlett,‘TheAmericanTraditionofConstituentPower’wasacceptedforpublicationbytheInternational Journal of Constitutional Law.
Dale Smith
Publications
DaleSmith,‘ANewTypeofConvention?SomeRemarksonBrunoCelano’sPre-Conventions’(2016),30 Revus69-76
BookReview:KennethM.Ehrenberg,‘TheFunctionsofLaw’(2017)36(2) Law and Philosophy215-223
Jason Varuhas
Publications
Book:MarkElliottandJasonNEVaruhas,AdministrativeLaw(5thedn,Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress,2017)796+lixpp.
Bookchapter:JasonNEVaruhas,‘InSearchofaDoctrine:MappingtheLawofLegitimateExpectations’inMatthewGrovesandGregWeeks(eds),Legitimate Expectations in the Common Law World(Oxford,HartPublishing,2017)17-52.SSRNversionavailableathttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2730964
ConferenceOrganisation
Organised,withDrNicoleMoreham(VictoriaUniversityofWellington),theInternational Workshop on Remedies for Breach of Privacy,12-13December2016,MelbourneLawSchool.Conferencereport:http://law.unimelb.edu.au/news/cmcl/international-workshop-on-remedies-for-breach-of-privacy
Presentations
Presented‘RemediesforBreachofPrivacy’attheJudges and the Academy Seminar,17February2017,SupremeCourtofVictoria.
Presented‘VarietiesofDamagesforBreachofPrivacy’attheInternational Workshop on Remedies for Breach of Privacy,12-13December2016,MelbourneLawSchool.
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 5
Dylan Lino
Publications
SubmittedPhDthesistitled,‘ConstitutionalRecognitionofAustralia’sIndigenousPeoples:Law,HistoryandPolitics’inJanuary2017.
DylanLino,‘AlbertVennDiceyandtheConstitutionalTheoryofEmpire’(2016)36 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies751
Presentations
Presented‘TheConstitutionalTheoryoftheBritishEmpire,1880–1960’,Asian Regional Workshop,InstituteforGlobalLawandPolicy,9January2017,Bangkok,Thailand
Presented‘TheRuleofLawandtheRuleofEmpire:AVDiceyinImperialContext’,Australian and New Zealand Law and History Society Annual Conference,6December2016,CurtinUniversity,Perth,Australia
Carlos Arturo Sandoval
Publications
CarlosArturoSandoval,‘UnaReflexiónCríticadelaReservaGuatemaltecaalArtículo27delaConvencióndeVienade1969anteunNuevoParadigmadeConstitucionalismoGlobal’[ACriticalReflectionoftheGuatemalanReservationtoArticle27oftheViennaConventionof1969underaGlobalConstitutionalismParadigm]XIII, Opus Magna Constitucional,2017[Forthcoming]
CarlosArturoSandovalandFabiaFernandesCarvalhoVecoso,‘AHumanRights’TaleofCompetingNarratives’,Direito & Praxis: Perspectivas Críticas do Sistema Interamericano de Direitos Humanos 2017[ForthcomingJune2017]
CarlosArturoSandoval,‘SoberaníayLegitimidaddeActoresInternacionalesenlaReformaConstitucionalGuatemalteca:ElRoldelaCICIG’[SovereingtyandLegitimacyofInternationalActorsintheGuatemalanConstitutionalReform](2016)1:1 Política Internacional36
CarlosArturoSandoval,‘InternationalActorsintheGuatemalanConstitutionalReform:TheStoryoftheCICIG’,enelblog Constitution Making & Constitutional Change Research Group de 6 de Febrero de 2017:http://constitutional-change.com/international-actors-in-the-guatemalan-constitutional-reform-the-story-of-the-cicig/
Presentations
Coordinated‘SeminariodeDerechoRegionalComparadoyProcesosdeIntegración’[SeminarofRegionalComparativeLawandIntegrationProcesses],heldbytheDiplomaticAcademyoftheMinistryofForeignRelationsoftheRepublicofGuatemala,onthe7and8ofDecember2016inGuatemalaCity.
Presented‘DerechoComparadoeIntegraciónCentroamericana’[ComparativeLawandCentralAmericanIntegration],heldbytheCentreofEconomicIntegrationStudiesoftheCentralAmericanEconomicIntegrationSecretariat,onthe6December2016inGuatemalaCity.
Presented‘DerechoRegionalComparado’[RegionalCom-parativeLaw]attheUniversidadAmericanCollege,onthe10November2016inManagua,Nicaragua.
Presentated‘UnaAlternativaConstructivista-SocialenelEstudiodelDerechoRegionalComparado’[ASocial-Con-structivistAlternativeintheStudyofRegionalCompara-tiveLaw],ataconferenceattheUniversidaddeCostaRicaonthe2November2016,inSanJosé,CostaRica.
CCCS RHD Update
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 6
TheConstitutionTransformationNetworkisanewinitiativethatbringstogetherateamofscholarsatMelbourneLawSchooltoexploreboththepracticeandtheconceptofconstitutionaltransformation.
Atapracticallevelconstitutionaltransformationisorhasrecentlybeenunderwayinmanystatesacrosstheworld.Atheart,constitutionaltransformationinvolvestheformulationandimplementationofnewConstitutionsormajorchangestoexistingConstitutions.Itcomprisesquestionsaboutconstitutionaldesignaswellastheprocessesofconstitutionalchange.Dependingonthecontext,constitutionaltransformationmayencompassconflictresolution,peacebuildingandothercatalystsforregimechange.Itextendswellbeyondtheratificationofnewarrangementstoincludeaperiodoftransition,whichmaybedrawn-outoveradecadeormore,andwhichcoversimplementationandconstitutionalchangepost-adoption.
InconceptualtermstheveryideaofaConstitutionmaybeundergoingtransformation,inthefaceoftheconditionsofinternationalisationandglobalisationthatcharacterisepresenttimes.Pressuresforchangecomefromwhatislooselydescribedastheconstitutionalisationofinternationallaw(theextenttowhicharrangementsattheregionalorinternationallevelsarebeginningtotakeformsthatmightbedescribedas‘constitutional’)andtheinternationalisationofconstitutionallaw(theimpactofinternationalactorsandnormsonconstitutionaltransformationwithinastate).Theseinterfacesbetweendomesticandinternationalinterestshavepracticalaswellastheoreticalimplications.
TheConstitutionTransformationNetworkseekstoexploretheseissuesthroughfiveinterrelatedandoverlappingthemes:peacebuilding;constitutionmaking;internationalanddomesticinterfaces;regionalism;andthedynamicsofimplementation.
Collectively,teammembersbringknowledgeinconstitutionalandcomparativeconstitutionallaw,internationallaw,militaryandinternationalhumanitarianlaw,regionallawandAsianlaw.Theybelievethatcontextiscriticallyimportantinconstitutionaltransformation,whichthereforerequirestheknowledgeandskillsofcomparativeconstitutionallaw.Tothatend,teammembersarecommittedtopoolingtheirexpertisetoworktogetherandwithglobalpartnerinstitutions,scholarsandpractitionerstomakeagenuinedifferencetoconstitutionaltransformationintheoryandpractice.
Theco-convenorsoftheConstitutionsTransformationNetworkareLaureate Professor Cheryl Saunders AO,Dr William PartlettandMsAnna Dziedzic.
Website:http://law.unimelb.edu.au/constitutional-transformations
Twitter:@ConTransNet
The Constitution Transformation Network
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 7
Constitutional Law Conference 2017
21July2017WoodwardConferenceCentre,MelbourneLawSchool
I n v I tat I o n
OnbehalfoftheCentreforComparativeConstitutionalStudies,weinviteyoutoregisterforamajorconferenceonconstitutionallawtobeheldon21July2017.TheConferenceisthe4thinaregularseriesofconferencesthatfocusonthemesofenduringsignificanceinconstitutionallaw.Thisyeartheconferencepaperswillfocuson
• Non-StatutoryExecutivePower;• ProportionalityafterMcCloy;• RetrospectivityandtheRuleofLaw.
ThefinalsessionoftheConferenceprovidesaretrospectiveontheHighCourtunderChiefJusticeRobertFrench,withaspecialfocusonChapterIIIandtheseparationofpowers.
The cases to be discussed include:Re Culleton[No2](2017);Cunningham v Commonwealth(2016);R (Miller) v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union(2016,UKSupCt,the‘Brexit’Case);Murphy v AEC(2016);Plaintiff M68(2015);P T Bayan Resources v BCBC Singapore(2016),Rizeq v Western Australia (2016);McCloy v New South Wales(2015);Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd(2013);Wainohu v New South Wales(2011);Momcilovic v The Queen(2011);Kirk v DPP(2010);South Australia v Totani(2010)andInternational Finance Trust Co Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission(2009).
TheconferencecloseswithadinnertobeaddressedbytheHon.JusticeMichelleGordonoftheHighCourtofAustralia.
PaperswillbedeliveredbyleadingpractitionersandacademicsincludingLorraineFinlay(MurdochUniversity);JustinGleesonSC(BancoChambers,NSWBar);EmeritusProfessorJeffreyGoldsworthy(MonashUniversity);theHon.KennethHayneAC(formerJusticeHighCourtofAustralia
andProfessorialFellowMelbourneLawSchool);DrBrendanLim(ElevenWentworth,NSWBar);theHon.JusticeStephenMcLeish(CourtofAppeal,Victoria);AssociateProfessorKristenRundle(MelbourneLawSchool);ProfessorJamesStellios(AustralianNationalUniversity);JuliaWatson(OwenDixonChambers,VictorianBar)andEmeritusProfessorFionaWheeler(AustralianNationalUniversity).
WearealsodelightedthattheconferencewillprovidetheoccasionforthelaunchofBrendanLim’sAustralia’s Constitution after Whitlam(2017),byLaureateProfessorEmeritusCherylSaundersAO.
ConferenceConvenors:
ProfessorAdrienneStone
DrScottStephenson
FullConferenceprogramP.T.O.
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 8
PROGRAM
2017 Constitutional Law Conference and Dinner Registration Details ABN: 84 002 705 224
Registration Fees (Early Bird)Conference and Dinner|$527
Conference Only|$412Conference Dinner Only|$115perperson
Registration and payment available at:www.law.unimelb.edu.au/cccs
Payment forms accepted: Visa, Mastercard or chequeNo refunds can be issued for cancellations after 1 July 2017
RegistrationEnquiries:Tel:(03)83441011
Email:[email protected]
8.30am Registration and coffee
9.00am Session OneNon-Statutory Executive PowerSpeaker:TheHon.KennethHayneAC(formerJusticeHighCourtofAustralia,ProfessorialFellow,MelbourneLawSchool)Commentators:TheHon.JusticeStephenMcLeish(CourtofAppeal,Victoria)AssociateProfessorKristenRundle(MelbourneLawSchool)
10.30am Morning Tea Woodward Conference Centre Foyer
11.00am Session TwoRetrospectivity and the Rule of Law: Public Law Perspectives Speakers:LorraineFinlay(MurdochUniversity)DrBrendanLim(ElevenWentworth,NSWBar)AssociateProfessorDanMeagher(LaTrobeUniversity)
12.30pm LunchWoodward Conference Centre Foyer
2.00pm Session ThreeProportionality since McCloy Speakers:JustinGleesonSC(BancoChambers,NSWBar)ProfessorAdrienneStone(MelbourneLawSchool)
3.30pm Afternoon TeaWoodward Conference Centre Foyer
4.00pm Session FourChapter III and the Separation of Powers: A Retrospective on the ‘French Court’Speakers:EmeritusProfessorJeffreyGoldsworthy(MonashUniversity)ProfessorJamesStellios(AustralianNationalUniversity)JuliaWatson(OwenDixonChambers,VictorianBar)EmeritusProfessorFionaWheeler(AustralianNationalUniversity)
5.30pm End of Conference
5.45pm Book LaunchWoodward Conference Centre Foyer
DrBrendanLim,Australia’s Constitution after Whitlam(2017)
Launchby:LaureateProfessorEmeritusCherylSaundersAO(MelbourneLawSchool)
7.00pm Conference DinnerUH@W, Level 10, Melbourne Law School
Courts and the Future of the Rule of LawSpeaker:TheHon.JusticeMichelleGordon(HighCourtofAustralia)
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 9
Recent Events
CCCS Seminar Series14 March 2017, Tuesday
Trumping American Administrative LawProfessorPeterStrauss(ColumbiaLawSchool)
AmericahasanewPresident.Yetunlikeparliamentarysystems,theAmericanConstitutiondoesnotassureitschiefexecutivepoliticalcontrolofthelegislature.Thechancefordividedgovernmentthusariseseverytwoyearswithlegislativeelections:infact,Americangovernmenthadbeendividedsincetheby-electionsof2010endedDemocratcontroloftheHouseofRepresentatives.Unabletosecurelegislativecooperation,Congress’shighlypartisanoppositiontoPresidentObamaduringhislastsixyearsinofficepromptedhim,evenmorethanPresidentsBushandClintonbeforehim,toclaimownershipofavarietyofregulatoryactionsusingauthoritythatCongresshadconferredonadministrativebodies,notthePresident.
PresidentTrump,reflectinghiscampaignrhetoric,hasissuedexecutiveorderafterexecutiveorderduringhisfirsttendaysinoffice.Theseactionsembodytheviewsboththatheisincharge,andthatregulationhasbeenexcessive.HisauthoritarianstancebuildsonanattitudetowardsthepresidencythathasbeensteadilygrowingatleastsincePresidentNixon:thatthePresidentisnotjustresponsibletooversee,butisentitledtocommandtheworkofexecutivegovernment.HisordershaveprovedatleastasdisturbingtoDemocratsasPresidentObama’sweretoRepublicans,and(likethem)haveresultedinstronglegalchallenges.
Administrativelawinevitablystraddlestheworldsofpoliticsandlaw,anditcouldbethatthefutureholdssignificantpossibilitiesforrebalancingtherelationshipsbetweenCongress,PresidentandCourtbothamongthemselvesandwithrespecttotheadministrativebodiesresponsibleforthedailyworkofdomesticgovernment.ProfessorStrauss’sexploredthisevolvingbalancebetweenpoliticsandlawinAmericanadministrativelawintheeraofPresidentTrump.
Peter L. Strauss istheBettsProfessorofLawatColumbiaLawSchool.HeisaleadingscholarofAmericanadministrativelaw,andseniorauthorofitsmostenduringteachingmaterials.HisscholarlywritingshavetendedtofocusonstructuralissuesinAmericangovernment,andtheAmericanprocessforcreatingregulations,aswellasissuesofstatutoryinterpretation.Throughouthiscareer,ProfessorStrauss’sworkhassoughttoexplainAmericanadministrativelawtolawyersandlawstudentsinotherlegalsystems,asisexemplifiedinhismostrecentbook,AdministrativeJusticeintheUnitedStates(3rded.2016).Recipientofnumerousacademichonoursinrecognitionofhisdistinguishedscholarshipinadministrativelaw,ProfessorStrausswaselectedtotheAmericanAcademyofArts&Sciencesin2010.
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 10
CCCS Seminar Series28 March 2017, Tuesday
Bijuralism: Challenges for the Canadian Judiciary Working Across Legal CulturesTheHonourableMadamJusticeJulieDutil(CourtofAppealofQuebec,Canada)
Inthisseminar,MadamJusticeDutildiscussedtheoriginsofbijuralisminCanadianlawandtherelationshipbetweencivilandcommonlawinCanada.TheseminaralsocanvassedsomeimportantjudgmentsintheSupremeCourtofCanadathatdemonstratetheworkingsofbirjuralism.
The Honourable Madam Justice Julie Dutil isajudgeoftheCourtofAppealofQuebec,Canada.MadamJusticeDutilwascalledtotheQuebecBarin1980,whereshespecializedinlabourlawandwasamemberofseveralcommitteesoftheQuebecBar.InMay1995,shewasappointedapart-timememberoftheCommissionforPublicComplaintsagainsttheRoyalCanadianMountedPolice.ShewasappointedajudgeoftheQuebecSuperiorCourtonNovember8,1996andwaselevatedtotheCourtofAppealonSeptember24,2004.
SinceJune2013,MadamJusticeDutilhasbeentheCoordinatingJudgeoftheQuebecdivisionoftheCourtofAppeal.ShewasalsothepresidentoftheConferenceofQuebecSuperiorCourtJudges(2009-2010),andhasservedasaboardmemberoftheCanadianSuperiorCourtJudgesAssociation(CSCJA)since2003.SheactedasadelegateoftheCSCJAattheInternationalAssociationofJudgeswheresheisthevice-presidentoftheStudyCommissiononpublicandsociallaw.ShealsoactedasaboardmemberfortheCanadianChapteroftheInternationalAssociationofWomenJudges
from2003to2009.MadamJusticeDutilalsositsontheresearchboardoftheFacultyofLaw,UniversityofLaval,Quebec.
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 11
28February2017,TuesdayRagnhild Nilssonspoketoherpaper‘TrustandPoliticalCleavageswithintheSamiParliamentsinSwedenandNorway’.
7March2017,TuesdayLulu Weis and Will Partlettspoketotheirpaper‘USPresidentialExecutiveOrders’.
14March2017,TuesdayAlan Pagespoketohispaper‘Brexit,theGreatRepealBillandthefutureoftheAnglo-ScottishUnion’.
4April2017,TuesdayRehan Abeyratnepresented‘SocioeconomicRightsAdjudicationinIndia-SeekingtoPreserveBothDemocraticandConstitutionalLegitimacy’.
11April2017,TuesdayJohn Borrowswillpresent‘TowardsanIndigenousLawDegree’.
2May2017,TuesdayLisa Burton-Crawford and Janina Boughey willpresent‘JurisdictionalError:DoWeReallyNeedIt?’
9May2017,TuesdayIddo Porat (detailstocome).
16May2017,TuesdayCheryl Saunders and Jason Varuhas willpresent‘Teaching“PublicLawandPrivateLaw”’.Co-hosted with Obligations Group.
23May2017,TuesdayAnne Carter (detailstocome).
30May2017,TuesdayLulu Weis (detailstocome).
CCCS Brown Bag SeriesRecentBrownBags ForthcomingBrownBags
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 12
TheCentreforComparativeConstitutionalStudieswillhostaseriesofconferences,seminarsandeventsin2017&2018.Formoreinformationon
theseandothereventsseehttp://law.unimelb.edu.au/centres/cccs#events
2017CCCS Constitutional Law Conference
21July2017MelbourneLawSchool
2017 Miegunyah Fellowship Public Lecture, ‘The Boundaries of Public Law’presentedby
Professor Denis Baranger Professor of Public law, l’Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas
26July2017MelbourneLawSchool
2018Third Biennial Public Law Conference
co-hosted with the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge11-13uly2018
MelbourneLawSchool
Forthcoming Events
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 13
TheLegalTheoryWorkshopseriesmeetsregularlytodiscussunpublishedworks-in-progressonavarietyoftheoreticalandnormativeissuesinthelaw.Unlessotherwisenoted,allworkshopmeetingswereheldonFridays,from12.30pm-2.30pm
GuestpresentersforSemesterOne2017(27February–28May2017):
5May2017
Professor Simone Degeling (UNSW),‘ThePhilosophicalFoundationsofEquity’Commentator:ProfessorMatthewHarding(Melbourne)
19May2017
Associate Professor Sarah Sorial (Wollongong),‘Whatdoesitmeanto“offend”,“insult”and“intimidate”?Aconceptualanalysisofsection18CoftheRacial Discrimination Act’Commentator:DrRobertSimpson(Monash)Workshop co-sponsored by the Centre for Media and Communications Law
26May2017
Dr Michael Sevel (Sydney),TopicTBACommentator:DrDaleSmith(Melbourne)
17March2017
Dr William Partlett (Melbourne) & Dr Zim Nwokora (Deakin),‘TheFoundationsofDemocraticDualism:WhyConstitutionalPoliticsandOrdinaryPoliticsareDifferent’Commentator:DrScottStephenson(Melbourne)
24March2017Dr Lisa Burton Crawford (Monash),‘JudicialReviewandtheLimitsofLegislativePower’Commentator:AssociateProfessorKristenRundle(Melbourne)
7April2017
Associate Professor Vasuki Nesiah (NYU),‘GenderingtheInvisibleHand:“Empowerment”and“Debt”inPost-ConflictEconomicGovernance’Commentator:ProfessorMirandaStewart(Melbourne)
28April2017
Dr Ron Levy(ANU),‘ShotgunReferendums:DeliberationandConstitutionalSettlementinConflictSocieties’Commentator:DrWilliamPartlett(Melbourne)
Legal Theory Workshop
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 14
CCCSmembersareactiveresearchersandteachersacrossabroadrangeofpubliclawissues.Manyareavailabletogivepresentationsortoconsultonpubliclawprojects,particularlycontributingacomparatieperspectivetodomesticissues.Theyarealsointerestedindiscussingpotentialprojectswithprospectiveresearchstudents.
TojoinourmailinglisttoreceivenoticificationaboutCCCSeventsandpublicationssendanemailto
Tolearnmoreaboutusgotowww.law.unimelb.edu.au/cccs
Ifyoudonotwishtoreceivefutureissuesofthenewsletter,[email protected]
Postal AddressCentreforComparativeConstitutionalStudies
MelbourneLawSchoolTheUniversityofMelbourneVIC3010Australia
General EnquiriesTelephone+61383441011
Co-DirectorsProfessorAdrienneStoneAssociateProfessorKristenRundle
Research Centre MembersLaureateProfessorEmeritusCherylSaundersAO,FoundationDirectorProfessorMichaelCrommelinAOProfessorAlisonDuxburyProfessorSimonEvansProfessorMichelleFosterProfessorJeremyGansProfessorBethGazeProfessorPipNicholsonAssociateProfessorFarrahAhmedAssociateProfessorKirstyGoverAssociateProfessorJoo-CheongThamAssociateProfessorMargaretYoungDrAlysiaBlackhamDrWilliamPartlettDrJulianSempillDrDaleSmithDrScottStephensonDrJasonVaruhasDrLuluWeisMsPennyGleesonMsPaulaO’BrienMrGlennPatmore
Post Doctoral Research FellowDrCoelKirkbyDrTomDaly
AdministratorJeanGoh
PhD Students in ResidenceAnneCarterAnnaDziedzicAnjaleeDeSilvaCarlosArturoVillagranSandovalCharmaineRodriguesTheHon.PhilipCummins
JD Research AssociatesElizabethBrumbyLukeChircopArtemisKirkinisMimiOorloffMarcusRobertsAnnaSaundersJoshuaQuinn-WatsonStefanLaddTaylorMitasAnnaBohacovaAndrewFongStephenO’ConnellMatthewHarper
Advisory Board MembersIanCunliffeDrStephenDonaghueQCDrGavanGriffithAOQCPeterHanksQCWendyHarrisQCJusticeChrisMaxwellAOJusticeStephenMcLeishJusticeDebbieMortimerJusticeMarkMoshinskyProfessorBrianOpeskinJasonPizerQCJusticeRichardRSTracey
Centre People
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 15
A. HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Palmer v Ayres [2017]HCA5
Thefirstplaintiff,Palmer1andthesecondplaintiff,Ferguson2,aredirectorsofQueenslandNickelPtyLtd(inliq)andcommencedrelatedproceedingsintheHighCourt,challengingtheconstitutionalvalidityofs596AoftheCorporations Act 2001(Cth)(‘Corporations Act’).Section596AoftheCorporations ActgivespowertotheFederalCourttosummonapersonfor‘examinationaboutacorporation’sexaminableaffairs’if(i)itreceivesanapplicationfroman‘eligibleapplicant’3and(ii)theCourtis‘satisfiedthatthepersonisanofficerorprovisionalliquidatorofthecorporation’4.QueenslandNickelPtyLtdenteredintovoluntaryadministration5.Pursuanttos596A,andonapplicationbythedefendants,thefirstandsecondplaintiffsweresummonedbeforetheFederalCourtforexamination6.
ThequestionreservedfortheHighCourtwaswhethers596AoftheCorporations Actis‘invalidcontrarytochIIIoftheConstitutioninthatitconfersnon-judicialpoweronfederalcourtsandoncourtsexercisingfederaljurisdiction’7.TheCourtunanimouslyheldthats596AisnotinvalidcontrarytochIIIoftheConstitution.
JudgmentTheplurality,comprisingKiefel,Keane,NettleandGordonJJ,rejectedthe‘matter’contentionraisedbytheplaintiffs.TheplaintiffsarguedthatalthoughParliamenthadconferredfederaljurisdictiononfederalandstatecourts,conferralinrespectofs596Awasinvalidbecausetherewasno‘matter’intheconstitutionalsensetoengagethejudicialpoweroftheCommonwealth8.Thisisbecauseexaminationunders596Awasaninvestigativeexerciseanddidnotestablishrights,dutiesorliabilities9.Thepluralityheldthatamattercanexist,eventhough‘aright,dutyorliabilityhasnotbeenestablished,andmayneverbe,established’10.Thepluralityheldthat‘matter’is‘subjectmatter’tobedeterminedinalegalproceedingincludingcontroversiesthatmightcomebeforethecourt11.Inthelegislativecontext,s596Aaidsspecial1 CaseB52/2016,PlaintiffSubmissions[5].2 CaseB55/2016,PlaintiffSubmissions.3 Corporations Act 2001(Cth)s596A(a),s9(definitionof‘eligibleapplicant’).4 Ibids596A(a).5 Corporations Act 2001(Cth)s436A;CaseB52/2016,Chronology;CaseB55/2016,Chronology.6 CaseB52/2016,Chronology;CaseB55/2016Chronology.7 CaseB52/2016,PlaintiffSubmissions[2],seealsoCaseB55/2016PlaintiffSubmissions[2].8 Palmer v Ayres [2016]HCA5,[25](Kiefel,Keane,NettleandGordonJJ).9 Ibid[25].10 Ibid[27].11 Ibid[26].
purposeliquidatorstoexaminecertainpersonsinvolvedinthecorporationabouttheaffairsofthecorporation12,andconsequentlythepowerlookstothepossibilitythattheinformationgatheredwillsupportaclaimofrelief13.Appliedinthiscase,thesummonsordermadebytheFederalCourtunders596Awasanexerciseofjudicialpower14.Themakingofasummonsorderwasheldtobeaproceduredesignedtoleadtoacontroversyregardingpotentialrightsandliabilitiesinfurtherlitigation,andisanalogoustootherpre-trialprocedures15.
Thepluralityalsoheldthatitwas‘neithernecessarynorappropriatetorelyon[a]purelyhistoricalbasis’todefinethepoweranditsprocessesasjudicialpower16.Inaddition,discoveryproceduresunders596Aareacreatureofthecourts,andthepluralityheldthatitisnotbeyondjudicialpowersimplybecauseitwasframedbythelegislativeratherthanthecourtsthemselves17.
Inaseparatejudgment,GagelerJheldthats596AoftheCorporations Actwasavalidconferralofjudicialpower,andunderstandingthemeaningofthe‘judicialpoweroftheCommonwealth’requiredcarefulattentiontothehistoricalcontextoftheConstitutionandlaterdecisionsinterpretingtheterm18.GagelerJstatedthatindeterminingwhetherafunctionisinherentlynon-judicialorexclusivelyjudicial,thequestionishowitisnowtobecharacterised,‘havingregardtothesystemicvaluesonwhichtheframers[oftheConstitution]canbetakentohavedrawnoninisolatingthejudicialpoweroftheCommonwealthandinvestingthatpoweronlyincourts’19.Regardingthevalues,GagelerJemphasisedthatcourtsexercisecommonlaworstatutorypowerstoinquireintosubjectmattersthathaveaconnectionwithalegalrightthatrequiresdetermination20.GagelerJemphasisedthats596AoftheCorporations Actimposesadutyonacourttoorderanexaminationthatdoesnotgobeyondtheroleofthecourtsupervisinganadministration21.Inaddition,theschemewasheldnottoraisetheconcernsthathavehistoricallyexcludedapowertoinquirefromtheconceptofjudicialpower22.Onthisbasis,GagelerJconcludedthats596AoftheCorporations Act confersjudicialpower23,andthereforeisnotcontrarytochIIIoftheConstitution.
12 Ibid[31].13 Ibid[30].14 Ibid[31]–[35].15 Ibid[36].16 Ibid[37].17 Ibid[40].18 Palmer v Ayres[2016]HCA5,[50]–[67](GagelerJ).19 Ibid[69](emphasisadded).20 Ibid[80].21 Ibid[99].22 Ibid[100].23 Ibid[101].
Comparative Constitutional Law Update
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 16
NSW Aboriginal Land Council v Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act [2016]HCA50
FactsCrownlandinBerrima,NSWhadbeenthesiteofajailandlateracorrectionalcentre,andhadbeendedicatedaccordinglyunderstatute.In2011,thecorrectionalcentrewasclosed,butthelandwasmaintainedpendingadecisionaboutwhattodowiththeland:buildingsweremaintained,gardensweretendedbyprisoners,andmembersofthepubliccouldvisit.
Aftertheclosureofthecorrectionalcentre,theNewSouthWalesAboriginalLandCouncil(ALC)claimedthelandundertheAboriginal Land Rights Act 1983(NSW)(‘the Act’).Underthe Act,aclaimantistherequiredtoshowthatthelandsatisfiesthecriteriafor‘claimableCrownlands’.Theissuewaswhetheraparticularconditionwassatisfied;namely,whetherthelandwas‘notlawfullyusedoroccupied’.
TheNSWLandandEnvironmentCourtheldthattheCouncil’sclaimfailed24.TheNSWCourtofAppealdismissedanappealbytheCouncil25.TheCouncilappealedtotheHighCourt.
DecisionTheHighCourtheld5:2thatthelandwas‘lawfullyusedoroccupied’,meaningthattheNSWALC’sclaimfailed.
Theplurality(FrenchCJ,Kiefel,BellandKeaneJJ)consideredthattheexpression‘lawfullyusedoroccupied’wasnotacompositephrase,butthateitherlawfuluseorlawfuloccupationwoulddefeataclaim26.Occupationmeans‘“actuallyoccupied”inthesenseofbeingoccupiedinfactandtomorethananotionaldegree’;‘mereproprietorship’doesnotsuffice27.
TheCouncilargued,first,thatthelandhadtobeoccupiedforthepurposeforwhichitwasdedicated.TheCourtrejectedthissubmission,statingthatit‘denie[d]thedistinctionbetweenuseandoccupationofland’28.Thus,althoughthelandhadnotbeenusedforajailorcorrectionalcentresince2011,theexerciseofcontroloverandmaintenanceofthelandwassufficienttodemonstrateoccupation.
TheCouncilalsoarguedthats2oftheNew South Wales Constitution Act 1855(Imp)hadtheeffectthattheexecutivecouldnotlawfullyoccupylandwithoutstatutoryauthority.Thissectionprovidesthat‘theentireManagementandControloftheWasteLandsbelongingtotheCrown…shallbevestedintheLegislatureofthesaidColony’.TheCourtstatedthatthesectionneededtobeinterpretedinitshistorical
24 New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council v Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act (Berrima)[2014]NSWLEC188.25 New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council v Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act (2015)303FLR87.26 Ibid[14].27 Ibid[17]–[18].28 Ibid[39].
context29.Thepurposeofs2wastoprovidethatthecoloniallegislature,ratherthantheimperialgovernment,wouldmanagewastelands30;it‘wasnottoabrogateexecutivepowerwithrespecttoCrownlands’(althoughsuchexecutivepowerbecamesubjecttolegislativecontrolasaresultofs2)31.Inanycase,statutoryauthorityfortheoccupationwasprovidedbytheReal Property Act 1900(NSW),underwhichtheStateofNewSouthWaleswastheregisteredproprietoroftheland32.
Inaseparatejudgment,GagelerJrejectedtheCouncil’ssubmissionsalonglinessimilartothoseoftheplurality,althoughhisHonourwentfurtherinrespectoftheCouncil’ssecondargument,statingthats2oftheNew South Wales Constitution Actnotonlydidnotabrogateexecutivepowerbutconferredanon-statutoryexecutivepowertomanagewastelandsasanecessaryconsequenceoftheconstitutionalsystemofresponsiblegovernment33.
NettleandGordonJJdissented.TheirHonoursheldthatthelandwasnot‘occupied’withinthemeaningoftheActandthattheCouncil’sclaimshould,therefore,havesucceeded.TheirHonoursconsideredthattheActshouldbeconstruedbeneficially34,meaningthat‘occupation’hadto‘bejudgedagainstthededication—here,gaolpurposes’35.Itwasnotsufficientthatthelandwasbeingheldpendingadecisionastofutureuse36.
Re Culleton [No 2] [2017]HCA4
FactsOn2March2016,RodCulletonwasconvictedoflarcenyinhisabsence.Unders117oftheCrimes Act 1900(NSW),hewasliabletobeimposedfortwoyears;however,s25(1)oftheCrimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999(NSW)providesthatan‘absentoffender’cannotbesentenced,soawarrantwasissuedforCulleton’sarrest.
On16May2016,CulletonwasnominatedforelectiontotheSenate.Hewassubsequentlyelected.
On25August2016,Culleton’sconvictionforlarcenywasannulledunders10(1)(a)oftheCrimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
Section44(ii)oftheConstitutionprovidesthat‘anypersonwhohasbeenconvictedandisundersentence,orsubjecttobesentenced,foranyoffencepunishableunderthelawoftheCommonwealthorofaStatebyimprisonmentforoneyearorlongershallbeincapableofbeingchosenorofsittingasasenator’.ThePresidentoftheSenatereferredquestionsrelatingtothevalidityofCulleton’selectiontotheHighCourtsittinginitscapacityastheCourtofDisputeReturns.
29 Ibid[50].30 Ibid[51].31 Ibid[52].32 Ibid[61].33 Ibid[129].34 Ibid[185].35 Ibid[186].36 Ibid[193].
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 17
DecisionTheCourtunanimouslyheldthatCulletonwasnoteligibletobenominatedatthetimehewasnominated.TheCourtorderedthattherebeaspecialcountoftheballotpaperstodeterminewhoshouldfillthevacancyleftbythedecision37.
Culleton’sargumentsweredisposedofasfollows.
First,Culletonarguedthats44(ii)onlyappliedtopersonsundersentence38.Theplurality(Kiefel,Bell,GagelerandKeaneJJ)rejectedthisastreatings44(ii)‘asifthewords“orsubjecttobesentenced”…havenooperation’39.
Second,Culletonalsoarguedthattheannulmenton8August2016causedtheconvictiontobevoidabinitio40.Thepluralitystatedthatan‘annulment’canberetrospectiveorprospective,andthatwhetheritisretrospectiveorprospectivedependsonthestatutorycontextinwhichthetermisused41.Section10(1)oftheCrimes (Sentencing Procedure) Actprovidesthat‘[o]nbeingannulled,aconviction…ceasestohaveeffectandanyenforcementactionpreviouslytakenistobereversed’.Thepluralityconsideredthattheuseofthephrase‘ceasestoeffect’indicates‘that[theconviction]hasbeenineffecttothatpoint’,andthattheuseofthephrase‘enforcementaction…istobereversed’indicatesthat‘thelegalstateofaffairspreviouslyestablishedbytheconviction[isleft]unaffected,savefortheactualreverseofanyactiontakenbywayofenforcementagainstthedefendant’42.Thereforetheannulmentdidnothaveretrospectiveeffect.
Finally,Culletonarguedthathewasnot‘subjecttobesentenced’becausehewasabsentathisconvictionands25(1)(a)oftheCrimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999(NSW)providesthatasentenceofimprisonmentmaynotbeimposedonan‘absentoffender’43.However,thepluralityconsideredthatwhenawarrantforSenatorCullen’sarrestwasissued‘theprocessesofthelawtowhichhemightlawfullybesentencedtoimprisonmentweresetintrain’,meaningthatinduecoursehewouldbepresent,andsocouldbelawfullysentenced44.Thereforethoughhewasabsentathisconviction,hewasstillsubjecttobesentenced.
NettleJagreedwiththeplurality’sordersbutfordifferentreasons.Relevantly,hisHonournotedthat,atfederation,electoralstatutesindicatedarequirementforcertaintythatanomineeiscapableofbeingchosen.Thiscontextindicatedthats44(ii)itselfshouldbeconstruedsoastoapplywhetherornotaconvictionwassubsequentlyannulled45.
37 ThevacancywasfilledbyPeterGeorgiou,amemberofPaulineHanson’sOneNationpartyandRodCulleton’sbrother-in-law.38 Re Culleton[No2][2017]HCA4,[16]39 Ibid40 Ibid[23].41 Ibid[24]–[25].42 Ibid[29](emphasisadded).43 Ibid[32].44 Ibid[36].45 Ibid[59].
B. NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
Burns v Corbett [2017]NSWCA3
FactsGarryBurnsmadecomplaintstotheAnti-DiscriminationBoardofNSWaboutstatementsbyThereseCorbettandBernardGaynorwhichBurnsclaimedwerepublicactsvilifyinghomosexuals,contrarytos49ZToftheAnti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).ThecomplaintswerereferredtotheNewSouthWalesCivilandAdministrativeAppealsTribunal(NCAT).
BurnswasaresidentofNewSouthWales.CorbettwasaresidentofVictoria.GaynorwasaresidentofQueensland.CorbettandGaynorchallengedthejurisdictionofNCATtohearanddeterminethedispute,beingadisputearisingbetweenaresidentofNewSouthWalesandaresidentofanotherstate.
DecisionTheCourtunanimouslyheldthatNCATdidnothavetherelevantjurisdiction(BathurstCJandBeazleyPagreeingwithLeemingJA).
Section75(iv)oftheConstitutionprovidesthattheHighCourthasoriginaljurisdictioninallmatters‘betweenStates,orbetweenresidentsofdifferentStates,orbetweenaStateandaresidentofanotherState’.Suchmattersaremattersinfederaljurisdiction46.
Section77(iii)providesthatParliamentmaymakelaws‘investinganycourtofaStatewithfederaljurisdiction’.Pursuanttos77(iii),andsubjecttoexceptionsnotrelevanttothecase,s39(2)oftheJudiciary Actconferson‘[t]heseveralCourtsoftheStates….JurisdictioninallmattersinwhichtheHighCourthasjurisdiction’.
Theeffectofs39oftheJudiciaryAct,incombinationwiths109oftheConstitution,isthatthereisnofreestandingstatejurisdictiontodeterminemattersidentifiedins75(ors76)oftheConstitution:thatjurisdictionisexclusivelyfederal.
ThedisputesheardbyNCATweremattersbetweenresidentsoftwostateswithinthemeaningofs75(iv)oftheConstitution—thatis,matterswithinfederaljurisdiction47.ItwasagreedthatNCATwasnota‘courtofthestate’forthepurposesofs77(iii)oftheConstitution48.Section39conferstherelevantjurisdictiononlyonstatecourts.Therefore,NCATdidnothavejurisdictiontohearthedisputes.
46 Ibid[19].47 Ibid[28].48 Ibid[29].
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 18
C. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017]UKSC5
FactsOn23June2016,areferendumwasheldasking,‘ShouldtheUnitedKingdomremainamemberoftheEuropeanUnionorleavetheEuropeanUnion?’Againstexpectations,51.9%votedtoleavetheEU.
Atthetimeofthereferendum,elementsofEUlawweregivendirecteffectindomesticlawbytheEuropean Communities Act 1972(UK)(‘EC Act’).ThishadbeenenactedasaconditionofmembershipoftheEuropeanCommunities(aprecursortotheEuropeanUnion).
InOctober2016,PrimeMinisterTheresaMayannouncedherintentiontotriggerart50oftheTreaty on European Union,whichgovernswithdrawalfromtheEU.Paragraph2ofart50providesthat‘[a]MemberStatewhichdecidestowithdrawshallnotifytheEuropeanCouncilofitsintention’.Thisnotificationisirrevocable.Paragraph3providesthataMemberStatethatgivesnoticeunderpara2shallceasetobeaMemberStatetwoyearsafternoticeisgivenunlesstheEuropeanCouncilandMemberStateunanimouslydecidetoextendtheperiod.
On3September2016,theHighCourtofJusticeofEnglandandWalesheldthatthegovernmentcouldnotrelyonitsprerogativepowerstotriggerart50.ThegovernmentappealedtotheSupremeCourt.
DecisionTheSupremeCourtdismissedtheappeal8:3,holdingthatthegovernmentcouldnotrelyonitsprerogativepowerstotriggerart50.
ThebasicprinciplesregardingthesovereigntyofParliamentandtheprerogativepowersoftheCrownwerenotincontention:legislationenactedbyParliamentissupremeandtheGovernmenthasno‘powertoprescribeoralterthelawtobeadministeredbyCourtsoflaw’49.Itwasalsocommongroundthattriggeringart50would,induecourse,meanthatelementsofEUlawwhichweretranslatedintodomesticlawbytheECActwouldinevitablyceasetohaveeffect.
Theclaimantarguedthatbecausetriggeringart50wouldalterthedomesticlaw,theGovernmentcouldnottakethatactionthroughtheexerciseofitsprerogativepowers.However,theGovernmentcontendedthatbecausethecontentofEUrightsisdefinedintheEC ActbyreferencetoEUtreaties,ParliamentmustbetakentohaveintendedthatcontinuedmembershipoftheEUwasaconditionfortheexistenceofEUrightstobegiveneffectindomesticlaw.Itwasthensaidthat‘whetherthatconditionissatisfiedornotwasintendedbyParliamenttodependentirelyupontheactionoftheCrownontheplaneof
49 Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union[2016]EWHC2768[29],quotingTheZamora[1916]2AC77,90(PC).
internationallaw’50.
Themajority(LordNeuberger,LadyHale,LordsMance,Kerr,Clarke,Wilson,SumptionandHodge)acceptedthereasoningoftheCourtbelow.TheirLordshipsemphasisedthat‘itisafundamentalprincipleoftheUKconstitutionthat,unlessprimarylegislationpermitsit,theRoyalprerogativedoesnotenableministerstochangestatutelaworcommonlaw’51.Theystatedthat,ina‘fundamental’and‘realistic’sense,thesourceofEUlawisnottheEC ActbutEUinstitutionsthemselves52.AcceptingthatthisgavetheEC Act‘aconstitutionalcharacter’53,theirLordshipsconcludedthatthe Act
endorsedandgaveeffecttotheUnitedKingdom’smembershipofwhatisnowtheEuropeanUnionundertheEUTreatiesinawaywhichisinconsistentwiththefutureexercisebyministersofanyprerogativepowertowithdrawfromsuchTreaties…54
LordReeddeliveredthemaindissentingjudgment.HisLordshipnoted‘[t]hecompellingpracticalreasonsforrecognising[the]prerogativepowertomanageinternationalrelations]’,whichincluded‘[t]hevalueofunanimity,strengthanddispatchintheconductofforeignaffairs’55.Incontrasttothemajority,hisLordshipconsideredthatthe‘theeffectofEUlawintheUKisentirelydependentonthe[EC Act]’56.Accordingly,althoughtheUK’sleavingtheEUwouldmeanthatEUlawwouldceasetohaveeffect,this‘issomethingwhichfollowsfromthe[EC Act]itself,anddoesnotrequirefurtherlegislation’.LordsCarnwathandHughesagreedwithLordReed.
Belhaj v Straw [2017]UKSC3
FactsBelhajandothersweredetained,inconnectionwithanti-terrorismactivities,byauthoritiesinvariouscountries,includingLibya,Malaysia,Thailand,andAfghanistan.TheyallegedthattheUnitedKingdomwascomplicitinvarioustorts(includingunlawfuldetentionandrendition,tortureorcruelandinhumantreatment,andassault)committedbythoseauthorities57.TheissuebeforetheCourtwaswhether,assumingtheallegationsaretrue,theclaimswereproperlytriableintheEnglishcourts.
DecisionTheCourtunanimouslyheldthattheclaimswereproperlytriableintheEnglishcourts.
Thegovernmenthadsoughttorelyfirstonthestate
50 Ibid[77].51 R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2027]UKSC5,[50].52 Ibid[61],[65].53 Ibid[67]54 Ibid[77].55 Ibid[160].56 Ibid[177].57 Belhaj v Straw[2017]UKSC3,[1].
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 19
immunitydoctrineandsecond‘foreignactofstate’doctrine.Thegovernmentsubmittedthatstatuteimmunity‘iswideenoughtocovercases…whereitisintegraltotheclaimsmadethatforeignstatesortheirofficialsmustbeprovedtohaveactedcontrarytotheirownlaws’58.TheCourtrejectedthissubmission,statingthattheimmunityonlycoverscaseswherethelegalpositionofforeignstatesisaffected59;itisnotsufficientthatforeignstatesmightsufferreputationaldamage.
Inresponsetothegovernment’s‘foreignactofstate’submission,theCourtidentifiedthreetypesofforeignactofstaterule.First,‘aforeignstate’slegislationwillberecognizedandnormallyacceptedasvalid,insofarasitaffectsproperty…situatedwithinthatstatewhenthelegislationtakeseffect’60.Second,‘anEnglishcourtwillnotquestionaforeigngovernmentalactinrespectofpropertysituatedwithinthejurisdictionoftheforeigngovernmentinquestion’61.Third,thereisageneralprinciplethatcourtsmaytreatasnon-justiciableissuesthatmustbeconsideredonacase-by-casebasis62.TheCourtconsideredthatnoneoftheseappliedonthefacts.
D. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Washington v Trump
On30January2017,theStateofWashington,andon1February2017,theStateofMinnesotafiledacomplaintseekingdeclaratoryandinjunctivereliefagainstdefendantsDonaldJTrumpinhisofficialcapacityasPresidentoftheUnitedStates,theUnitedStatesDepartmentofHomelandSecurity(‘DHS’),JohnFKelly,inhisofficialcapacityasSecretaryofDHS,TomShannon,inhisofficialcapacityasActingSecretaryofStateandtheUnitedStatesofAmerica.TheStatessoughtdeclaratoryreliefinvalidatingportionsoftheExecutiveOrderofJanuary27,2017,entitled‘ProtectingtheNationfromForeignTerroristEntryintotheUnitedStates’andanorderrestrainingtheenforcementofthosesameprovisionsoftheExecutiveOrder.TheExecutiveOrderprovidedabanonimmigrantsandvisitorsfromsevenMuslimmajoritycountriesenteringtheUnitedStates63.
Intervening‘tofulfilitsconstitutionalrolein[its]tripartgovernment’theCourtfirstorderedtemporaryrestrainingorders64.Theappellants’(theGovernment)Motiontostaywasdenied65.TheappellantsrevokedtheExecutiveOrder,drafted
58 Ibid[16].59 Ibid[31].60 Ibid[35],[135].61 Ibid[38],[75]–[78].62 Ibid[40],[123].63 State of Washington et al v Donald Trump et al,AmendedOrder(17March2017)1(ReinhardtJ).64 State of Washington et al v Donald Trump et al,TemporaryRestrainingOrder,(3February2017)7.65 State of Washington et al v Donald Trump et al,MotiontoStayDenied(27February2017)1.
arevisedorder66,andtheappellants’unopposedmotionforvoluntarydismissaloftheappealwasgranted67.Anen bancreconsiderationoftheStayOrder,ascalledbyajudgeofthecourt,wasdenied68.Thereisnownolivecontroversybeforethecourtregardingeitherthemeritsoftheunderlyingcaseortheproprietaryoftheoriginalrestrainingorder69.Caseinformationandordersarefoundhere.
ReaderswhoareinterestedinfurtherdiscussionofthelegaldimensionsandlegitimacyofPresidentDonaldTrump’sexecutiveorder‘ProtectingtheNationfromForeignTerroristEntryintotheUnitedStates’mayliketobrowsethefollowingblogs:
• TheNewYorker–TheVulnerabilitiesintheNinthCircuit’sExecutive-OrderDecision
• JustSecurity–Gettingahandleonthelitigationchallengingtheseven-nation“travelban”
• Jurisprudence–ClearViolation• InsideStory–ThePresidentversustheAttorney-
General
Peña-Rodriguez v Colorado 321US(2017) (6 March 2017)
AColoradojuryconvictedpetitionerPeña-Rodriguezofharassmentandunlawfulsexualcontact.Followingthedischargeofthejury,twojurorstolddefencecounselthat,duringdeliberations,onejurorhadexpressedanti-Hispanicbiastowardsthepetitionerandpetitioner’salibiwitness.TheCourtacknowledgedthejuror’sapparentbiasbutdeniedthepetitioner’smotionforanewtrialonthegroundthatColoradoRuleofEvidences606(b)generallyprohibitsajurorfromtestifyingastostatementsmadeduringdeliberationsinaproceedinginquiringintothevalidityoftheverdict.Thisisknownastheno-impeachmentrule,andensuresthatjurors,oncetheirverdicthasbeenentered,willnotlaterbecalledintoquestionbasedoncommentsorconclusionstheyexpressedduringdeliberations70.
ThequestionbeforetheCourtwaswhetherthereisanexceptiontotheno-impeachmentrule,when,afterthejuryisdischarged,ajurorcomesforwardwithcompellingevidencethatanotherjurormadeclearstatementsofracialanimusasasignificantfactormotivatinghisorhervote71.PursuanttotheSixthAmendment,righttotrialbyanimpartialjury,theCourtfoundthisexceptiontothenon-impeachmentrule.
JudgmentKennedyJ,joinedbyGinsburg,Breyer,Sotomayorand
66 State of Washington et al v Donald Trump et al,AmendedOrder(17March2017)1(BerzonJ).67 State of Washington et al v Donald Trump et al,OrdertoDismiss(8March2017)1.68 State of Washington et al v Donald Trump et al,AmendedOrder(17March2017)1.69 State of Washington et al v Donald Trump et al,AmendedOrder(17March2017)2(BerzonJ).70 Peña-Rodriguez v Colorado 321 US(2017)(6March2017)2(KenedyJ)(Peña-Rodriguez v Colorado).71 Ibid2.
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 20
KaganJJ,firstnotedthatCongressadoptedtheFederalRulesofEvidence,includingrule606(b),whichendorsedabroadno-impeachmentrule,withonlylimitedexceptions72,togivestabilityandfinalitytoverdicts73.KennedyJthenacknowledgedthiscase‘liedattheintersectionoftheCourt’sdecisionsendorsingtheno-impeachmentruleanditsdecisionsseekingtoeliminateracialbiasinthejurysystem’74.KennedyJdistinguishedracialbiasfromother‘anomalousbehaviourofasinglejuryorjuror’ofpreviouscaselaw,statingthat‘racialbias,afamiliarandrecurringevilthat,ifleftunaddressed,wouldrisksystematicinjurytotheadministrationofjustice’75.Whilstallimproperbiaswasheldtoposechallenges,KennedyJheldthat‘thereisasoundbasistotreatracialbiaswithaddedprecaution’76andthataconstitutionalrulethatracialbiasinthejusticesystemmustbeaddressedtopreventasystematiclossofconfidenceinjuryverdicts,istheSixthAmendmenttrialright77.
TheCourtthereforeheldthatwhereajurormakes‘aclearstatementthatindicatesheorshereliedonracialstereotypesoranimustoconvictacriminaldefendant,theSixthAmendmentrequiresthattheno-impeachmentrulegivewayinordertopermitthetrialcourttoconsidertheevidenceofthejuror’sstatementandanyresultingdenialofthejurytrialguarantee’78.Inaddition,toqualify,the‘statementmusttendtoshowthatracialanimuswasasignificantmotivatingfactorinthejuror’svotetoconvict’79.HowevertheCourtalsonotedthatitwillnotdecidetheappropriatestandardfordeterminingwhenevidenceofracialbiasissufficienttorequirethattheverdictbesetasideandanewtrialbegranted80.
ThomasJ,andAlitoJjoinedbyRobertsCJdissented.Referringtocommonlawhistoryandpreviousdecisions,ThomasJheldthatadefendantdoesnothavetherighttoimpeachaverdictwithjurortestimonyofjurormisconductandinfactsuggestedthatsuch‘evidenceisprohibited’81.ThomasJalsoheldthatthereisnobasistoinvoketheSixthAmendment82,andthatthequestionshouldberesolvedbythelegislature,notthecourt83.AlitoJstatedthatitis‘hardtosee’what‘racialbiashastodo’withthescopeofan‘individual criminal defendant’sSixthAmendmentrighttobejudgedimpartially’84.FurthermoreAlitoJcontendedthat‘iftheSixthAmendmentrequiresadmissionofjurortestimonyaboutstatementsofconductduringdeliberationsthatshowonetypeofjurorpartiality,thenstatementsorconductshowinganytypeofpartialityshould
72 Ibid8.73 Ibid9.74 Ibid15.75 Ibid15–16.76 Ibid17.77 Ibid.78 Ibid.79 Ibid.80 Ibid20.81 Peña-Rodriguez v Colorado 321 US(2017)(6March2017)5(ThomasJ).82 Ibid5.83 Ibid6.84 Peña-Rodriguez v Colorado 321 US(2017)(6March2017)18(AlitoJ).
betreatedthesameway’85.Concluding,AlitoJstatedthat‘imposingexceptionsontheno-impeachmentrulewilltendtodefeatfullandvigorousdiscussion,exposejurorstoharassment,anddepriveverdictsofstability’86.
Buck v Davis 200US(2017) (22February2017)
FactsBuckwasconvictedofmurder.Buck’sattorneycalledpsychologisttooffertheiropinionontheissue.ThepsychologisttestifiedthatBuckwouldprobablynotengageinviolentconduct;howevertheyalsostatedthatoneofthefactorspertinentinassessingaperson’spropensityforviolenceistheperson’srace,andthatconsequentlyBuckwasstatisticallymorelikelytoactviolentlybecauseheisblack.ThejurysentencedBucktodeath87.Buckcontendsthathisattorney’sintroductionofthisevidenceviolatedtheSixthAmendmentrighttotheeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.TheclaimhadneverbeenheardonthemeritsinanycourtbecausetheattorneywhorepresentedBuckfailedtoraiseit,andaFederalDistrictCourtreliedonthatfailuretoholdthatBucksclaimwasprocedurallydefaultedandunreviewable88.Buckthensoughttoreopenthejudgment,filingamotionundertheFederalRuleofCivilProcedure60(b)(6).
OneofthequestionsbeforetheCourtwaswhetherBuckwasdeniedtheconstitutionalSixthAmendmentright.TheCourtsupportedtheineffective-assistance-of-counselclaimandheldthatBuckwasdeniedthisSixthAmendmentconstitutionalright.
JudgmentRobertsCJdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourtinwhichKennedy,Ginsburg,Breyer,SotomayorandKaganJJjoined.RobertsCJfirstnotedthatinorderforBucktoappealunderrule60(b)(6)motion,hehadtoshowthesubstantialdenialofaconstitutionalright89.HowevertheCourtclarifiedthatthecourtofappealsshould‘limititsexaminationtoathresholdinquiryintotheunderlyingmeritsoftheclaims,’andask‘onlyiftheDistrictCourt’sdecisionwasdebatable’90.
TheCourtthenheldthatBuckwasdeniedofhisSixthAmendmentright,becausehiscounselperformeddeficientlyandthatcounsel’sdeficientperformancecausedhimprejudice91.TheCourtheldthatitwouldbe‘patentlyunconstitutionalforastatetoarguethatadefendantisliabletobeafuturedangerbecauseofhisrace’92.Inaddition,Buckestablishedareasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounsel’sunprofessionalerrors,theresultsoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent93.ThisisbecausethejurorswerenotaskedtodetermineahistoricalfactconcerningBuck’sconduct,but85 Ibid18.86 Ibid.87 Buck v Davis 200 US(2017)(22February2017)1(RobertsCJ).88 Ibid1—2.89 Ibid12.90 Ibid14.91 Ibid16.92 Ibid17.93 Ibid.
CCCS Newsletter March 2017 | 21
torenderapredictivejudgmentinevitablyentailingadegreeofspeculation94.Furthermorethestatisticalevidencefromanexpertwasusedtoguidethejurorsonthisspeculativeinquiry95,andwhenadefendant’sownlawyerputsintheoffendingevidence,itismorelikelytobetakenatfacevalue96.RobertsCJconcludedthereforethatBucksufferedprejudicecontrarytotheSixthAmendment.
ThomasJ,joinedbyAlitoJ,dissented.ThomasJstatedthatprejudiceundertheSixthAmendmentonlyexistswhencorrectingtheallegederrorwouldhaveproducedasubstantiallikelihoodofadifferentresult97.ThomasJthenattributedgreaterweight,suchaslackofremorse,totheoveralljurordecision,suchthattherewasnotasubstantiallikelihoodofadifferentresult98.
D. SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association v Attorney General of British Columbia2017SCC6
Section239oftheElection Act,RSBC1996,c106(‘theAct’)requiresthirdpartysponsorsofelectionadvertisingduringacampaignperiodtoregisterwiththeChiefElectoralOfficer.In2009and2013,theBritishColumbia(BC)FreedomofInformationandPrivacyAssociationsponsoredelectionadvertisingandwerethereforesubjecttotheregistrationrequirementunders239oftheAct99.TheBCFreedomofInformationandPrivacyAssociationchallengeds239ongroundsthatthatitbreachedtherighttofreedomofexpressionunders2(b)oftheCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms(‘the Charter’).Specifically,itwasarguedthatrequiringindividualsororganisationswhowishto‘sponsorelectionadvertising’toregisterisnotareasonableanddemonstrablyjustifiedlimitonexpressionbypersonswhoconveypoliticalmessagesthroughsmall-scaleelectionactivities100.Therefores2(b)ofthe Chartershouldbereaddowntoincludeanexceptionforthirdpartiesspendinglessthan$500onelectionadvertising101.
Thetrialjudgefoundthats239oftheActinfringedfreedomofexpression,butbasedonHarper v Canada(Attorney-General)2004SCC33,foundthattheinfringementwasjustifiedunders1ofthe Charter.TheCourtofAppealforBritishColumbia,andtheSupremeCourtofCanadadismissedtheappeal.
Judgment
94 Ibid18.95 Ibid19.96 Ibid20.97 Buck v Davis 200 US (2017)(22February2017)1(ThomasJ)4.98 Ibid5.99 B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association v Attorney General of British Columbia 2017 SCC 6,[11](McLachlinC.J.andMoldaver,Karakatsanis,Wagner,Gascon,CôtéandBrownJJ).100 Ibid[12].101 Ibid[21].
McLachlinCJandMoldaver,Karakatsanis,Wagner,Gascon,CôtéandBrownJJheldthats239doesnotcapturetheexpressiontowhichtheBCFreedomofInformationandPrivacyAssociationrelies102.TheCourtheldthats239oftheAct,readinitscontext,andconsideringthepurposeoftheActandthegrammaticalandordinarysenseofthewordsused,indicatesthata‘sponsor’whichisrequiredtoregister,isanindividualororganisationwhoreceivesanadvertisingservicefromanotherindividualororganisation,whetherinexchangeforpaymentorwithoutcharge103.Consequently,individualswhodonotpayforadvertisingservicesandwhodonotreceiveadvertisingservicesfromotherswithoutchargearenot‘sponsors’withinthemeaningofs239.Thismeansthatthosewhotransmittheirownpointsofview,whetherbypostingahandmadesigninawindow,orputtingabumperstickeronacar,orwearingat-shirtwithamessageonit,withoutregisteringit,arenotcapturedbytheAct104.
TheCourtheldthattheregistrationrequirementimposedonsponsorslimitstheirrightofexpressionunders2ofthe Charter105.However,thelimitontheexpressionofsponsorswhospendlessthan$500isjustifiedunders1ofthe Charter106.Thisisbecausethepurposeoftheregistrationrequirement,whichistoincreasetransparency,opennessandpublicaccountabilityintheelectoralprocessandthuspromoteaninformedelectorate,ispressingandsubstantialandtheregistrationrequirementisrationallyconnectedtothisobject107.
TheCourtheldthatthelimitwasminimallyimpairing:byconfiningtheregistrationrequirementtosponsorsandexemptingpoliticalself-expressionbypersonswhoarenotsponsors,s239tailorstheimpingementonexpressiontowhatisrequiredbytheobjectoftheAct108.TheCourtalsoheldthattheregistrationrequirements’deleteriouseffectsarelimitedbytheAct109,especiallygiventhatitonlyappliestoexpressionintheformofsponsorship110.Furthermoreanydeleteriouseffectswereheldtobeoutweighedbythebenefitofthescheme111.Forexample,thebenefitsoftheschemeweretopermitthepublictoknowwhoisengagedinorganisedadvocacyintheirelections,ensuringthatthosewhosponsorelectionadvertisingmustprovidethepublicwithanassurancethattheyareincompliancewithelectionlaw112.
Finally,theAttorneyGeneralofBritishColumbiawasnotrequiredtoleadsocialscienceevidenceinordertodischargeitsburdenofjustificationunders1ofthe Charter.Thisisbecausethescopeoftheinfringementwasheldtobeminimal113.
102 Ibid.103 Ibid.104 Ibid[23],[31].105 Ibid[43].106 Ibid[47].107 Ibid[51].108 Ibid[53].109 Ibid[54].110 Ibid.111 Ibid[55].112 Ibid.113 Ibid[57].
To join our mailing list and receive notice of CCCS events and publications, please send an email to [email protected]
Postal AddressCentre for Comparative Constitutional StudiesMelbourne Law SchoolThe University of Melbourne VIC 3010 Australia General Enquiries
Telephone +613 8344 1011Facsimile +613 8344 1013
www.law.unimelb.edu.au/cccs
