Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T02:42:46.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Church of Scientology Inc. V. Mr Justice Woodward

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Leslie Glick
Leslie Glick*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, Monash University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Constitutional law — Australian Security Intelligence Organization — Executive power in relation to collection of information in the interests of security — Constitutional law — Constitution s. 116 — No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth

Type
Case Notes
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 1980 , pp. 102 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Unreported decision 1 November 1979. High Court of Australia; Aickin J.

2 In form, the proceedings before Aickin J. arose from a summons taken out on behalf of the defendant asking that the plaintiff's statement of claim be struck out pursuant to 0.26 r. 18 (High Court Rules) on the ground that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action or alternatively that the proceedings should bestayed under 0.63 r.2 on the ground that there was not a reasonable or probable cause of action disclosed or that the proceedings were vexatious and oppressive.

3 When pressed to define the expression, counsel for the plaintiff offered the following: an organization that is the subject of continued surveillance in respect of which intelligence is to be indefinitely assembled.

4 S.75(iii) and (v) Constitution.

5 (1904) 2 C.L.R. 139.

6 Id. 157.Cf. Lockwood v. The Commonwealth (1954) 90 C.L.R. 177.

7 The limits on the executive and legislative powers of the Commonwealth with respect to the control of subversive activities are canvassed in the judgment of Sir Owen Dixon in the Communist Party case (1950) 83 C.L.R. 1, 185 ff.

8 The matter has been discussed more recently by Mason J. in Victoria v. The Commonwealth (1975) 134 C.L.R. 338.

9 (1904) 2 C.L.R. 139, 157.

10 Transcript of judgment 12.

11 Id. 12-13.

12 Id. 11-12.

13 There is probably no cause of action for breach of privacy at common law.Cf. Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co. Ltd v. Taylor (1937) 58 C.L.R. 479 and Malone v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979] 2 W.L.R. 700.

14 (1904) 2 C.L.R. 139.

15 (1954) 90 C.L.R. 177.

16 Transcript of judgment 10.

17 See Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses Inc. v. The Commonwealth (1943) 67 C.L.R. 116, 147 per Latham C.J.

18 Id. 146-147 per Latham C.J.; 149 per Rich J.; 154-155 per Starke J.; 159-161 per Williams J.