No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 January 2025
The relationship between law and history has long been the subject of academic interest. Both disciplines have occasion to turn to the past, yet their purposes and methods for doing so often vary. Some commentators have noted the similarities between the two disciplines, describing them as ‘intellectual cousins’ who share a ‘natural affinity'. Yet, equally, commentators have noted the tensions between the two disciplines, depicting them not as allies but as strangers or enemies. These scholars have painted a picture of competing logics, suggesting that the clash between the law's ‘logic of authority’ and the historian's ‘logic of evidence’ creates an uneasy relationship.
Although capturing the attention of both judges and commentators, the intersection between law and history continues to elude precise definition.
I am particularly grateful to Andrew Ligertwood for his enthusiasm and support throughout the various stages of the preparation of this article. I would also like to thank Dr Steven Churches, Dr Gary Edmond, Dr Christopher Jones, Meaghan McEvoy, Alexander Reilly, Andrew Tokley and Jonathan Wells QC for their assistance and comments at various stages. I am also grateful to the anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions.
1 See, eg, Graeme, Davison, ‘History on the Witness Stand: Interrogating the Past’ in Iain, McCalman and Ann, McGrath (eds), Proof and Truth: The Humanist as Expert (2003) 53Google Scholar, 53.
2 Jonathan, D Martin, ‘Historians at the Gate: Accommodating Expert Historical Testimony in Federal Courts’ (2003) 78 New York University Law Review 1518Google Scholar, 1523.
3 Helen, Hornbeck Tanner, ‘History vs. The Law: Processing Indians in the American Legal System’ (1999) 76 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 693Google Scholar, 694, 698; Martin, above n 2, 1523–5; James, C Mohr, ‘Historically Based Legal Briefs: Observations of a Participant in the Webster Process’ (1990) 12(3) Public Historian 19Google Scholar, 19–22.
4 F W, Maitland, ‘Why the History of English Law is Not Written’ in H A L, Fisher (ed), The Collected Papers of Frederic William Maitland (1911) vol 1, 480Google Scholar, 491. See also John, Phillip Reid, ‘Law and History’ (1993) 27 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 193Google Scholar, 195–6; Enid, Campbell, ‘Lawyers’ Uses of History’ (1968) 6(1) University of Queensland Law Journal 1Google Scholar.
5 (1996) 187 CLR 1 (‘Wik’), 182–3 (Gummow J).
6 Bradley, Selway, ‘The Use of History and Other Facts in the Reasoning of the High Court of Australia’ (2001) 20 University of Tasmania Law Review 129Google Scholar.
7 Courts can only ever seek an ‘approximation’ of the past, and can never reconstruct the past in its entirety. See discussion corresponding to footnote 11, below.
8 See, eg, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Native Title Report 2007 (2008)Google Scholar.
9 Carl, L Becker, ‘What are historical facts?’ in P L, Snyder (ed), Detachment and the Writing of History: Essays and Letters of Carl L Becker (1958) 41Google Scholar, 52.
10 Andrew, Ligertwood, Australian Evidence (4th ed, 2004) 5Google Scholar. Evidence scholars sometimes express this approximation in terms of mathematical probabilities: see, eg, Hamer, David, ‘The Civil Standard of Proof Uncertainty: Probability, Belief and Justice’ (1994) 16 Sydney Law Review 506Google Scholar; D H, Hodgson, ‘The Scales of Justice: Probability and Proof in Legal Fact-finding’ (1995) 69 Australian Law Journal 73Google Scholar1.
11 In the context of ascertaining the Aboriginal death toll during colonisation see Lawrence, McNamara, ‘History, Memory and Judgment: Holocaust Denial, The History Wars and Law’s Problems with the Past’ (2004) 26 Sydney Law Review 353Google Scholar, 392.
12 Michael, Kirby, ‘Alex Castles, Australian Legal History and the Courts’ (2005) 9 Australian Journal of Legal History 1Google Scholar, 12–13; Ward v Western Australia (1998) 159 ALR 483, 504 (Lee J).
13 Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 (‘Mabo’); Wik (1996) 187 CLR 1. See Tom, Gara, ‘History, Anthropology and Native Title’ in Mandy, Paul and Geoffrey, Gray (eds), Through a Smoky Mirror: History and Native Title (2002) 65Google Scholar, 66.
14 R S French, ‘Mabo – Native Title in Australia’ (Paper presented at the Landmark Cases Roundtable Conference, Constitutional Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, 10–11 December 2004) [2]–[30]; Bain, Attwood, ‘The Law of the Land or the Law of the Land?: History, Law and Narrative in a Settler Society’ (2004) 2 History Compass 1Google Scholar; Gara, above n 13, 69–70; Penelope, Matthew, Rosemary, Hunter and Hilary, Charlesworth, ‘Law and History in Black and White’ in Rosemary, Hunter, Richard, Ingleby and Richard, Johnstone (eds), Thinking About Law: Perspectives on the History, Philosophy and Sociology of Law (1995) 3Google Scholar, 3–27; Bain, Attwood, ‘Introduction – The Past as Future: Aborigines, Australia and the (dis)course of History’ in Bain, Attwood (ed), In the Age of Mabo: History, Aborigines and Australia, (1996) vii, xxxi–xxxiiiGoogle Scholar; Selway, above n 6, 151; John, Williams, ‘Constitutional Intention: The Limits of Originalism’ in Ngaire, Naffine, Rosemary, Owens and John, Williams (eds), Intention in Law and Philosophy (2001) 321, 334–5Google Scholar.
15 (1889) 14 App Cas 286, 291 (Lord Watson) (Privy Council).
16 Mabo (1992) 175 CLR 1, 58, 69 (Brennan J); 104–9 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).
17 David, Ritter and Frances, N A Flanagan, ‘Stunted Growth: the Historiography of Native Title Litigation in the Decade Since Mabo’ (2003) 10 Public History Review 21Google Scholar, 21–3.
18 Gara, above n 13, 67.
19 David, Ritter, ‘Whither the Historians? The Case for Historians in the Native Title Process’ (1999) 4(17) Indigenous Law Bulletin 4Google Scholar, 4; Alexander, Reilly, ‘The Ghost of Truganini: Use of Historical Evidence as Proof of Native Title’ (2000) 28 Federal Law Review 453Google Scholar, 470.
20 There are some recent collections: Mandy, Paul and Geoffrey, Gray (eds), Through a Smoky Mirror: History and Native Title (2002)Google Scholar; Christine, Choo and Shawn, Hollbach (eds), History and Native Title: Studies in Western Australian History (2003) vol 23Google Scholar; Iain, McCalman and Ann, McGrath (eds), Proof and Truth: The Humanist as Expert (2003)Google Scholar; Sandy, Toussaint (ed), Crossing Boundaries: Cultural, Legal, Historical and Practice Issues in Native Title (2004)Google Scholar. See also Michael, Stuckey, ‘Not by Discovery but by Conquest: The Use of History and the Meaning of “Justice” in Australian Native Title Cases’ (2005) 34 Common Law World Review 19Google Scholar; Ritter and Flanagan, above n 17; Alex, Reilly and Ann, Genovese, ‘Claiming the Past: Historical Understanding in Australian Native Title Jurisprudence’ (2004) 3 Indigenous Law Journal 19Google Scholar.
21 Cathie, Clement, ‘Historians and Native Title: A Personal Perspective’ (2000) 91 Australian Historical Association Bulletin 86Google Scholar; Fiona Skyring, ‘History Wars: Debates about History in the Native Title Process’ in Choo and Hollbach (eds), above n 20, 71; Christine, Choo, ‘Working as a Historian on the Miriuwung Gajerrong Native Title Claim’ in Sandy, Toussaint (ed), Crossing Boundaries: Cultural, Legal, Historical and Practice Issues in Native Title (2004) 195Google Scholar; Michael, Barker, ‘Working as a Barrister on the Miriuwung Gajerrong Native Title Claim’ in Sandy, Toussaint (ed), Crossing Boundaries: Cultural, Legal, Historical and Practice Issues in Native Title (2004) 159Google Scholar.
22 Ann, Curthoys, Ann, Genovese and Alex, Reilly, Rights and Redemption: History, Law and Indigenous People (2008)Google Scholar.
23 Yorta Yorta (2001) 110 FCR 244, 264 [63] (Black CJ). Cf defamation actions, where the ‘court’s determination will not present a statement of what happened in the past. Rather, it is only a finding of plausibility or implausibility’: McNamara, above n 11, 373.
24 Robert, Nicholson, ‘The Use of History in Proving Native Title: A Judge’s Perspective’ (2003) 12 Early Days Journal: Proceedings of the Royal Western Australian Historical Society 315Google Scholar, 316.
25 Hal Wootten, ‘Conflicting Imperatives: Pursuing Truth in the Courts’ in McCalman and McGrath (eds), above n 20, 15, 16–21.
26 G M, Dickinson and R D, Gidney, ‘History and Advocacy: Some Reflections on the Historian’s Role in Litigation’ (1987) 68 Canadian Historical Review 576Google Scholar, 580.
27 See Reilly and Genovese, above n 20, 37.
28 Stuckey, above n 20, 20.
29 Davison, above n 1, 65. See also Ann, Genovese, ‘The Use of History in Native Title: Historical Perspectives’ (2003) 12 Early Days Journal: Proceedings of the Royal Western Australian Historical Society 326Google Scholar, 329–31.
30 For some interesting comparative analysis, see Simon, Young, The Trouble with Tradition: Native Title and Cultural Change (2008)Google Scholar.
31 Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v State of Victoria [1998] FCA 1606 (Unreported, Olney J, 18 December 1998); Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v State of Victoria (2001) 110 FCR 244 (Full Federal Court); Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v State of Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422. These decisions will be footnoted hereafter as ‘Yorta Yorta’, with the relevant citation.
32 See, eg, Natasha, Case, ‘Tide of History or Tsunami? The Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v The State of Victoria & Ors (1998)’ (1999) 4(17) Indigenous Law Bulletin 20Google Scholar; Valerie, Kerruish and Colin, Perrin, ‘Awash in Colonialism: A Critical Analysis of the Federal Court Decision in the Matter of the Members of Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v The State of Victoria & Ors’ (1999) 24 Alternative Law Journal 3Google Scholar; Wayne, Atkinson, ‘“Not One Iota” of Land Justice: Reflections on the Yorta Yorta Native Title Claim 1994–2001’ (2001) 5(6) Indigenous Law Bulletin 19Google Scholar; James, Cockayne, ‘Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria: Indigenous and Colonial Traditions in Native Title’ (2001) 25 Melbourne University Law Review 786Google Scholar; Alexander, Reilly, ‘History Always Repeats: Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v State of Victoria’ (2001) 5(6) Indigenous Law Bulletin 25Google Scholar; Doug, Young and Tony, Denholder, ‘Proof of Native Title – Yorta Yorta’ (2001) 20 Australian Mining and Petroleum Law Journal 82Google Scholar; Simon, Young, ‘The Trouble with “Tradition“: Native Title and the Yorta Yorta Decision’ (2001) 30 University of Western Australia Law Review 28Google Scholar; Richard, Bartlett, ‘An Obsession with Traditional Laws and Customs Creates Difficulty Establishing Native Title Claims in the South: Yorta Yorta’ (2003) 31 University of Western Australia Law Review 35Google Scholar; Ben, Golder, ‘Law, History, Colonialism: An Orientalist Reading of Australian Native Title Law’ (2004) 9 Deakin Law Review 41Google Scholar; Peter, Seidel, ‘Native Title: The Struggle for Justice for the Yorta Yorta Nation’ (2004) 29 Alternative Law Journal 70Google Scholar.
33 Wootten, above n 25, 43.
34 Although s 223 was amended in 1998, the changes did not affect s 223(1): See Yorta Yorta (2002) 214 CLR 422, 433 [10] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ); Melissa Perry and Stephen Lloyd, Australian Native Title Law (2003) 19.
35 Yorta Yorta (2002) 214 CLR 422, 440 [32], 451 [70], 453 [75] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ); Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1, 65–6 [16] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ). For some discussion of the role of the common law in the interpretation of the NTA, see Maureen, Tehan, ‘A Hope Disillusioned, An Opportunity Lost? Reflections on Common Law Native Title and Ten Years of the Native Title Act’ (2003) 27 Melbourne University Law Review 523Google Scholar; Sean, Brennan, ‘Native Title in the High Court of Australia a Decade after Mabo’ (2003) 14 Public Law Review 209Google Scholar, 209–15.
36 Gumana v Northern Territory of Australia (2005) 141 FCR 457, 494 [128], 493 [120] (cf at common law) (Selway J). See also Gumana v Northern Territory of Australia (2007) 158 FCR 359, 383[127] (French, Finn and Sundberg JJ).
37 Mabo (1992) 175 CLR 1, 58 (Brennan J), 110 (Deane and Gaudron JJ); Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 195 CLR 96, 128 [46] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ); Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351, 382–3 [72] (Gummow J); Wik (1996) 187 CLR 1, 169 (Gummow J).
38 Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1, 66 [18] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ); Gumana v Northern Territory of Australia (2005) 141 FCR 457, 497–9 [144]–[148] (Selway J). See also Perry and Lloyd, above n 34, 764; Lisa, Wright, ‘Themes Emerging from the High Court’s Recent Native Title Decisions’ (2003) 1 National Native Title Tribunal Occasional Papers Series, 18–19Google Scholar <http://www.nntt.gov.au/Publications-And-Research/Tribunal-Research/Pages/Occasional-Paper-Series.aspx> at 19 April 2008.
39 Gumana v Northern Territory of Australia (2005) 141 FCR 457, 498 [146]. The nature of these inquiries was not disputed on appeal, although some of his Honour’s specific findings in relation to s 223(1)(b) were challenged: see Gumana v Northern Territory of Australia (2007) 158 FCR 359, 385-93 [135]–[163].
40 Gumana v Northern Territory of Australia (2005) 141 FCR 457, 498 [145]. For the High Court’s analysis of paragraph (c), see Yorta Yorta (2002) 214 CLR 422, 453–4 [76]–[77] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ). Cf McHugh J’s vehement criticisms at 467–8 [126]–[136].
41 Commonwealth v Yarmirr (2001) 208 CLR 1, 39 [15] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ); Daniel v Western Australia [2003] FCA 666 (Unreported, Nicholson J, 3 July 2003) [136]; Perry and Lloyd, above n 34, 764.
42 Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1, 91 [82], 95 [95] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ); Daniel v Western Australia [2003] FCA 666 (Unreported, Nicholson J, 3 July 2003) [136]. Some have argued that this particularisation of rights and interests compounds the problems of proof: Bartlett, above n 32, 44–6; Lisa, Strelein, ‘Conceptualising Native Title’ (2001) 23 Sydney Law Review 95Google Scholar, 103–4; Sky, Mykyta, ‘Losing Sight of the Big Picture: The Narrowing of Native Title in Australia’ (2005) 36 Ottawa Law Review 93Google Scholar, 112–14.
43 Yorta Yorta (2002) 214 CLR 422. Note that when I refer to the ‘majority’ of the High Court I am referring to the joint judgment of Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ. McHugh and Callinan JJ agreed with the result but delivered separate judgments.
44 Yorta Yorta (2002) 214 CLR 422, 441–4 [38]–[44] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
45 Ibid 444 [44].
46 Ibid 444 [46].
47 Ibid 444 [47].
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid 447 [56].
50 Reilly and Genovese, above n 20, 32.
51 Yorta Yorta (2002) 214 CLR 422, 456–7 [87]–[89] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
52 Ibid 455 [83], 457 [90].
53 As to the nature of this connection, see Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1, 84–6 [57]–[64] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
54 Yorta Yorta (2002) 214 CLR 422, 456 [86] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
55 Michael, Black, ‘Developments in Practice and Procedure in Native Title Cases’ (2002) 13 Public Law Review 16Google Scholar.
56 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 82.
57 Yorta Yorta [1998] FCA 1606 (Unreported, Olney J, 18 December 1998) [17]. As to the burden of proof, see Daniel v Western Australia [2003] FCA 666 (Unreported, Nicholson J, 3 July 2003) [146]–[148]; Western Australia v Ward (2000) 99 FCR 316, 351–2 [116]–[120] (Beaumont and von Doussa JJ); Yorta Yorta (2001) 110 FCR 244, 284–6 [151]–[159] (Branson and Katz JJ).
58 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, 343–4 (Latham CJ), 361–3 (Dixon J); Bater v Bater [1950] 2 All ER 458, 459 (Denning LJ).
59 Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170, 171 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane and Gaudron JJ). See also Cubillo v Commonwealth (No 2) (2000) 103 FCR 1, 115–18 [346]–[352] (O’Loughlin J); G v H (1994) 181 CLR 387, 399 (Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ); Cassell v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 189, 193 [18] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ); Shaw v Wolf (1998) 83 FCR 113, 123–5 (Merkel J).
60 Yorta Yorta (2002) 214 CLR 422, 454 [80] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
61 De Rose v State of South Australia [2002] FCA 1342 (Unreported, O’Loughlin J, 1 November 2002) [570]. This decision and others sharing the same case history will be hereafter referred to as ‘De Rose’ with the relevant citation.
62 (1994) 34 NSWLR 572.
63 Ibid 586 (Kirby P).
64 Ibid 587. Note that Kirby P referred to John, Henry Wigmore, Wigmore on Evidence (3rd ed, 1961) vol 2, § 437Google Scholar, and also earlier authorities such as Cloverdell Lumber Co Pty Ltd v Abbott (1924) 34 CLR 122, 137–8 (Isaacs J).
65 Mason v Tritton (1994) 34 NSWLR 572, 588 (Kirby P).
66 Gumana v Northern Territory of Australia (2005) 141 FCR 457, 510 [196] (Selway J). See also De Rose [2002] FCA 1342 (Unreported, O’Loughlin J, 1 November 2002) [570].
67 Gumana v Northern Territory of Australia (2005) 141 FCR 457, 510 [194].
68 Ibid 510 [197], 511 [201]. This inferential process adopted by Selway J was not challenged on appeal. See also Commonwealth v Yarmirr (2000) 101 FCR 171, 194 [66] (Beaumont and von Doussa JJ); De Rose (2003) 133 FCR 325, 402 [259] (Wilcox, Sackville and Merkel JJ).
69 [2007] FCA 31 [341]–[350].
70 Ibid.
71 Ligertwood, above n 10, 14.
72 George, F James, ‘Relevancy, Probability and the Law’ (1941) 29 California Law Review 689Google Scholar, 696.
73 W A N, Wells, Natural Logic, Judicial Proof and Objective Facts (1994) 3Google Scholar, 6–12, 83–4.
74 Richard, Evans, ‘History, Memory and the Law: The Historian as Expert Witness’ (2002) 41 History and Theory 326Google Scholar, 333–5; Leora, Bilsky, ‘Judging and Understanding’ (2001) 19 Law and History Review 183Google Scholar.
75 (2000) 103 FCR 1.
76 Ibid 243–62 [782]–[838], 387 [1246]; Arthur Glass, ‘Making the Facts Speak’ in McCalman and McGrath (eds), above n 20, 123, 127; Mark Dreyfus, ‘Historians in Court’ in McCalman and McGrath (eds), above n 20, 71, 71–2; Ann Curthoys and Ann Genovese, ‘Evidence and Narrative: History and Law’ in McCalman and McGrath (eds), above n 20, 83, 88.
77 Glass, above n 76, 130; Cockayne, above n 32, 794, 796–8.
78 Yorta Yorta [1998] FCA 1606 (Unreported, Olney J, 18 December 1998) [121], [129]. See also Yorta Yorta (2001) 110 FCR 244, 260 [51] (Black CJ).
79 Yorta Yorta [1998] FCA 1606 (Unreported, Olney J, 18 December 1998) [121], [129].
80 Yorta Yorta (2001) 110 FCR 244, 269 [84] (Black CJ). See also 260 [51].
81 Ibid 263 [59]. See also 260 [50], 263 [59]–[61].
82 I am using the term ‘inference’ in the Wigmorean sense, which assumes it is possible to discern some rational relationship between the evidence and the factual propositions drawn from this evidence. See Ligertwood, above n 10, 7–12.
83 John, Henry Wigmore, The Science of Judicial Proof (3rd ed, 1937)Google Scholar; Terence, Anderson and William, Twining, Analysis of Evidence: How to do Things with Facts (1991) 136–53Google Scholar; Andrew, Palmer, Proof and the Preparation of Trials (2003) 61–83Google Scholar, 169–73; Ligertwood, above n 10, 7–12.
84 Ligertwood, above n 10, 13–14.
85 James, above n 72, 695.
86 Christine Choo and Margaret O’Connell, ‘Historical Narrative and Proof of Native Title’ in Paul and Gray (eds), above n 20, 11, 17–20; Curthoys and Genovese, above n 76, 87–8.
87 Quick v Stoland (1998) 87 FCR 371, 373–4 (Branson J); Neowarra v Western Australia (No 1) (2003) 134 FCR 208, 217–19 [22]–[27] (Sundberg J); Jango v Northern Territory of Australia (No 2) [2004] FCA 1004 (Unreported, Sackville J, 3 August 2004) [11], [33]–[34], [54].
88 Nicholson, above n 24, 322.
89 See, eg, Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486, 491 (Dixon CJ); Weal v Bottom (1966) 40 ALJR 436, 438–9 (Barwick CJ), 442 (Taylor J); Murphy v R (1989) 167 CLR 94, 111 (Mason CJ and Toohey J), 130–1 (Dawson J); R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45, 46–7 (King CJ); Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316, 336 [53] (Gaudron and Gummow JJ).
90 Velevski v The Queen (2002) 76 ALJR 402, 416 [82] (Gaudron J), 426–7 [153]–[158] (Gummow and Callinan JJ); HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414, 427 [40] (Gleeson CJ), 432 [58] (Gaudron J).
91 (1998) 43 NSWLR 364, 371. Young J’s decision was followed by Hely J in Jones v Scully (2002) 120 FCR 243.
92 Bellevue Crescent v Marland Holdings (1998) 43 NSWLR 364, 371.
93 Ibid.
94 Ibid. Young J was considering admissibility under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), but this is identical to the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
95 See, eg, (at common law) Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (‘The Gove Case’) (1971) 17 FLR 141, 161–2 (Blackburn J); Reid v Kerr (1974) 9 SASR 367, 370 (Wells J); Borowski v Quayle [1966] VR 382, 385–9. Cf later authorities under the Uniform Evidence Acts (and changes brought about by s 60): R v Welsh (1996) 90 A Crim R 364, 366–9 (Hunt CJ); Quick v Stoland (1998) 87 FCR 371, 377–8 (Branson J), 382 (Finkelstein J); Daniel v Western Australia (2000) 178 ALR 542, 547 [19]–[21] (Nicholson J); Lardil, Kaiadilt, Yangkaal, Gangalidda Peoples v Queesland [2000] FCA 1548 (Unreported, Cooper J, 1 November 2000) [1]–[16]; Harrington-Smith on behalf of the Wongatha People v Western Australia (No 7) (2003) 130 FCR 424, 431–2 [35]–[39] (Lindgren J).
96 Bellevue Crescent v Marland Holdings (1998) 43 NSWLR 364, 371. While Young J’s judgment was upheld on appeal, note that the Court of Appeal did take a different view of the admissibility of expert historical evidence under s 79: Tomark Pty Ltd v Bellevue Crescent Pty Ltd [1999] NSWCA 347, [1]–[2], [20]–[43].
97 (2000) 97 FCR 453, 514 [250], 523 [298]. As to the disputed historical interpretation in Wik, see Jonathan, Fulcher, ‘Sui Generis History: The Use of History in Wik’ in G, Hiley (ed), The Wik Case: Issues and Implications (1997) 51Google Scholar; Jonathan, Fulcher, ‘The Wik Judgment, Pastoral Leases and Colonial Office Policy and Intention in NSW in the 1840s’ (1998) 4 Australian Journal of Legal History 33Google Scholar; Gim Del, Villar, ‘Pastoral Leases and Native Title: A Critique of Ward and Wik’ (2004) 16 Bond Law Review 29Google Scholar, 44–51; Selway, above n 6, 151–2.
98 See, eg, De Rose [2002] FCA 1342 (Unreported, O’Loughlin J, 1 November 2002) [317]–[321]; Daniel v Western Australia [2003] FCA 666 (Unreported, Nicholson J, 3 July 2003) [149]–[201]; Neowarra v State of Western Australia [2003] FCA 1402 (Unreported, Sundberg J, 8 December 2003) [50]–[61].
99 (2003) 130 FCR 424, 429 [26].
100 Ibid 432–3 [40].
101 Ibid.
102 Ibid 433 [41].
103 Ibid 433 [42]. See also Lindgren J’s comments on this in Harrington-Smith on behalf of the Wongatha People v State of Western Australia (No 9) [2007] 238 ALR 1, 116 [433].
104 Cf Jango v Northern Territory (No 4) (2004) 214 ALR 608, 612–13 [25]–[31], where Sackville J held (at 613 [29]) that the task of ‘determining the primary facts’ (eg, ‘dates of birth, family links or the observances of particular practices’) from historical documentation was not a task that fell within the specialised knowledge of an anthropologist. While noting that ‘professional experience’ would be helpful to locate the documents, ‘[o]nce the source materials are admitted into evidence, it is for the Court to determine whether they establish the primary facts relied on by the applicants to establish their claims.’ However, Sackville J (analogising accounting evidence: Potts v Miller (1940) 64 CLR 282) noted that in some instances anthropologists may be able to offer ‘analysis’ or to ‘summarise the effect of complex or voluminous primary evidence’ (at 613 [27]).
105 Yorta Yorta [1998] FCA 1606 (Unreported, Olney J, 18 December 1998) [129].
106 This has been attributed to appellate caution: Harriet Ketley and Clare Ozich, in Choo and Hollbach (eds), above n 20, 83, 90; Bartlett, above n 32, 38.
107 Yorta Yorta [1998] FCA 1606 (Unreported, Olney J, 18 December 1998) [106]. See also [21]–[22].
108 Ibid [33]–[34], [106], [53]–[54], [60]–[61], [63], [66]–[67], [73], [101], [106]–[108].
109 Ibid [106].
110 Ibid [25].
111 Ibid [52]–[88].
112 Ibid [106].
113 Ibid [121].
114 Ibid [118].
115 Ibid [119]; Kerruish and Perrin, above n 32, 5.
116 Yorta Yorta [1998] FCA 1606 (Unreported, Olney J, 18 December 1998) [119].
117 Ibid [120]–[121].
118 Ibid [121].
119 Ibid [122]–[128].
120 Ibid [23].
121 Ibid [55], [58], [62].
122 Ibid [54].
123 See, eg, Samuel, Furphy, ‘Edward Micklethwaite Curr’s “Recollections of Squatting“: Biography, History and Native Title’ in Penelope, Edmonds and Samuel, Furphy (eds), Rethinking Colonial Histories: New and Alternate Approaches (2006) 33Google Scholar.
124 Bain, Attwood, ‘Mabo, Australia and the End of History’ in Bain, Attwood (ed), In the Age of Mabo: History, Aborigines and Australia (1996) 100, 103Google Scholar; Ann, McGrath, ‘Contested Ground: what is “Aboriginal History“?’, in Ann, McGrath (ed), Contested Ground: Australian Aborigines Under the British Crown (1995) 359Google Scholar, 359–97.
125 Gara, above n 13, 69.
126 Yorta Yorta [1998] FCA 1606 (Unreported, Olney J, 18 December 1998) [53].
127 Ibid [60].
128 Ibid [54].
129 Ibid [33].
130 Roderic, Pitty, ‘A Poverty of Evidence: Abusing Law and History in Yorta Yorta v Victoria (1998)’ (1999) 5 Australian Journal of Legal History 41Google Scholar, 43–52.
131 Yorta Yorta [1998] FCA 1606 (Unreported, Olney J, 18 December 1998) [117].
132 Melissa, Castan and Sue, Kee, ‘The Jurisprudence of Denial’ (2003) 28 Alternative Law Journal 83Google Scholar, 86.
133 Bruce, Buchan, ‘Withstanding the Tide of History: The Yorta Yorta Case and Indigenous Sovereignty’ (2002) 1(2) Borderlands E-Journal [28]Google Scholar <http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol1no2_2002/buchan_yorta.html> at 19 April 2008.
134 Castan and Kee, above n 132, 86.
135 Kerruish and Perrin, above n 32, 6; Golder, above n 32, 52.
136 Yorta Yorta (2001) 110 FCR 244, 261–3 [55]–[60] (Black CJ).
137 Ibid 262 [58].
138 Ibid 266 [74].
139 Ibid.
140 Ibid 266 [73].
141 See Yorta Yorta [1998] FCA 1606 (Unreported, Olney J, 18 December 1998) [118].
142 Yorta Yorta (2001) 110 FCR 244, 266 [73] (Black CJ).
143 [2003] FCA 666 (Unreported, Nicholson J, 3 July 2003).
144 Ibid [149].
145 Ibid.
146 Ibid [10], [150]–[151], [175].
147 Ibid [219].
148 Ibid [415]–[429].
149 Ibid [415]–[424].
150 Ibid [421]. See also [424]. The Full Federal Court upheld Nicholson J’s findings in relation to the continuity of connection, and did not dispute the general approach he took to the historical evidence. See Moses v State of Western Australia (2007) 160 FCR 148, 209 [248]–[249] and more generally 221-32 [301]–[344].
151 See David, Ritter, ‘The Judgement of the World: The Yorta Yorta Case and the “Tide of History“’ (2004) 35(123) Australian Historical Studies 106Google Scholar, 121.
152 [2004] FCA 374 (Unreported, Madgwick J, 31 March 2004).
153 Ibid [9]–[10] (the legislation was the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW)).
154 Ibid [10]–[11].
155 Ibid [109]. See also [110]–[117].
156 Ibid [43].
157 Ibid [111]. See also [116]–[117].
158 Bartlett, above n 32, 45–6; French, above n 14, [73].
159 For a discussion of judicial accountability in the interpretation of ‘tradition’, see Anthony, Connolly, ‘Conceiving of Tradition: Dynamics of Judicial Interpretation and Explanation in Native Title Law’ in Suzanne, Corcoran and Stephen, Bottomley (eds), Interpreting Statutes (2005) 118Google Scholar.
160 Issues of process, including the appropriate scope of judicial notice, remain undefined: Selway, above n 6, 130–5; Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 460, 184 [165] (Callinan J); Graham, Mullane, ‘Evidence of Social Science Research: Law, Practice and Options in the Family Court of Australia’ (1998) 72 Australian Law Journal 434Google Scholar; M H, Ogilvie, ‘Case Notes: Evidence – Judicial Notice – Historical Documents and Historical Facts – Indian Treaty Rights’ (1986) 64 Canadian Bar Review 183Google Scholar.
161 For a discussion of ‘possessory title’ see Strelein, above n 42, 108–11; Alex Reilly, ‘From a Jurisprudence of Regret to a Regrettable Jurisprudence: Shaping Native Title from Mabo to Ward’ (2002) 9(4) E Law - Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law [73]–[80] <http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v9n4/reilly94nf.html> at 19 April 2008; Kent, McNeil, ‘Aboriginal Title and Aboriginal Rights: What’s the Connection?’ (1997) 36 Alberta Law Review 117Google Scholar.
162 Brennan v Comcare (1994) 50 FCR 555, 574–5 (Gummow J).
163 K & S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon & Gotch Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 309, 315 (Mason J); CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1995) 187 CLR 348, 408 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey and Gummow JJ). See also D C Pearce and R S Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (6th ed, 2006) 71–2, 114–15; F A R, Bennion, Statutory Interpretation: A Code (4th ed, 2002) 501Google Scholar–3.
164 See Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) Preamble. See also the Explanatory Memorandum to the Act, which is referred to in Yorta Yorta (2001) 110 FCR 244, 276.
165 See, eg, Peter, Burke (ed), New Perspectives on Historical Writing (1991)Google Scholar; Keith, Jenkins, On ‘What is History?’: From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White (1995)Google Scholar.
166 Martin, above n 2, 1533–4; Donald, P Boyle, ‘Philosophy, History, and Judging’ (1988) 30 William and Mary Law Review 181Google Scholar, 182–3; C, Behan McCullagh, The Truth of History (1998) 41–2Google Scholar; Davison, above n 1, 53–4; Michael, Oakeshott, ‘The Activity of being an Historian’ in Michael, Oakeshott (ed), Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (1962) 137Google Scholar.
167 Daniel, A Farber, ‘Adjudication of Things Past: Reflections on History as Evidence’ (1998) 49 Hastings Law Journal 1009Google Scholar, 1027. The impact of postmodernism on history has generated an enormous body of literature: see, eg, Thomas, L Haskell, ‘Objectivity is Not Neutrality: Rhetoric vs. Practice in Peter Novick’s That Noble Dream’ (1990) 29 History and Theory 129Google Scholar; Joyce, Appleby, Lynn, Hunt and Margaret, Jacob, Telling the Truth About History (1994) 198–237Google Scholar.
168 Gary, Goodpaster, ‘On the Theory of American Adversary Criminal Trial’ (1987) 78 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 118Google Scholar; Raymond, A Belliotti, ‘Our Adversary System: In Search of a Foundation’ (1988) 1 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 19Google Scholar.
169 See E H Carr’s description of when a fact becomes a ‘historical fact’: E H, Carr, What is History? (1961) 10–15Google Scholar. See also R C, Lewontin, ‘Facts and Factitious in Natural Sciences’ (1991) 18 Critical Inquiry 140Google Scholar, 147–8.
170 Ronald, J Allen, ‘The Nature of Juridical Proof’ (1991) 13 Cardozo Law Review 373Google Scholar, 387–93; Hamar, Foster and Alan, Grove, ‘Looking Behind Masks: A Land Claims Discussion Paper for Researchers, Lawyers and their Employers’ (1993) 27 University of British Columbia Law Review 213Google Scholar, 220.
171 Allen, above n 170, 391.
172 Alexander, Reilly, ‘How Mabo Helps Us Forget’ (2006) 6 Macquarie Law Journal 25Google Scholar, 28; Evans, above n 74, 333–5.
173 Allen, above n 170, 390. Cf Asher, Maoz, ‘Historical Adjudication: Courts of Law, Commissions of Inquiry, and “Historical Truth“’ (2000) 18 Law and History Review 559Google Scholar, 605.
174 Allen, above n 170, 387–91; Farber, above n 167, 1025–7.
175 Note that some facts are ‘indispensable intermediate facts’: Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573.
176 See, eg, Robert, Manne (ed), Whitewash: On Keith Windschuttle’s Fabrication of Aboriginal History (2003)Google Scholar; Stuart, Macintyre and Anna, Clark, The History Wars (2003)Google Scholar.
177 Keith, Windschuttle, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One, Van Diemen’s Land 1803–1847 (2002)Google Scholar.
178 Reilly and Genovese, above n 20, 36. See also David Ritter, ‘No Title Without History’ in Paul and Gray (eds), above n 20, 81.
179 Reilly and Genovese, above n 20, 29. See Yorta Yorta (2002) 214 CLR 422, 444 [44] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ). See also discussion in Part I, above.
180 Reilly and Genovese, above n 20, 29.
181 Ibid 30, 29.
182 Ibid 29.
183 Ibid 37.
184 Ibid 35.
185 Ibid.
186 Yorta Yorta (2002) 214 CLR 422, 456 [89] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
187 Yorta Yorta (2002) 214 CLR 422, 460 [103] (Gaudron and Kirby JJ).
188 Ibid.
189 Ibid 466 [122] (referring to the judgment of Olney J at first instance).
190 Ibid 460 [104].
191 Ibid 466 [124] (emphasis added).
192 Ibid 466 [123] (emphasis added).
193 Ibid 463 [114].
194 Ibid 464 [115].
195 Ibid 463 [113].
196 Ibid 464 [114].
197 Ibid 463 [113].
198 (2007) 160 FCR 148, 233 [352].
199 Ibid 234 [358].
200 De Rose (2003) 133 FCR 325, 394 [224], 396–7 [238] (Wilcox, Sackville and Merkel JJ); De Rose [2002] FCA 1342 (Unreported, O’Loughlin J, 1 November 2002) [316], [346], [372], [376].
201 De Rose [2002] FCA 1342 (Unreported, O’Loughlin J, 1 November 2002) [345]–[346].
202 Ibid [372].
203 Ibid [346].
204 See De Rose (No 2) (2005) 145 FCR 290, 296 [16]–[17].
205 De Rose (2003) 133 FCR 325, 394 [224]. See also 393–5 [220]–[228] (Wilcox, Sackville and Merkel JJ).
206 Ibid 398 [245] 401–2 [255]–[259]; De Rose (No 2) (2005) 145 FCR 290, 323 [113]. Note the possibility of connection via ‘incorporation’, which circumvents the need to rely on connection by virtue of the Western Desert Bloc: De Rose [2002] FCA 1342 (Unreported, O’Loughlin J, 1 November 2002) [346]; De Rose (2003) 133 FCR 325, 398–9 [243]–[246] (Wilcox, Sackville and Merkel JJ).
207 De Rose (2003) 133 FCR 325, 409 [277]–[279], 417 [312] (Wilcox, Sackville and Merkel JJ), where Yorta Yorta is distinguished.
208 The pastoralists’ application for special leave to appeal was refused by the High Court on 10 February 2006. Note comments by Lindgren J in Harrington-Smith on behalf of the Wongatha People v State of Western Australia (No 9) (2007) 238 ALR 1, 50 [99], 94 [304].
209 Peter Veth, ‘“Abandonment” or Maintenance of Country? A Critical Examination of Mobility Patterns and Implications for Native Title’ (2003) 2(22) Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title <http://ntru.aiatsis.gov.au/ntpapers/IPv2n22.pdf> at 19 April 2008.
210 (2006) 153 FCR 120.
211 Bodney v Bennell (2008) 249 ALR 300, discussed below.
212 Samantha, Hepburn, ‘Social Continuity and Forced Change: The Noongar Case’ (2006) 174 Deakin Law Review 173Google Scholar, 173. See also Zoey, Irvin, ‘Wilcox J and Olney J: A Comparative Analysis of Historical Assumptions in the Yorta Yorta and Single Noongar Decisions’ (2006) 6(24) Indigenous Law Bulletin 24Google Scholar.
213 Bennell v State of Western Australia (2006) 153 FCR 120, 317 [776].
214 Ibid 317 [776].
215 Ibid 317 [777].
216 Ibid 318 [785].
217 Ibid 319 [791].
218 Bodney v Bennell (2008) 249 ALR 300, 318 [73].
219 Ibid 318 [74].
220 Ibid 324–5 [97]. But see also 328 [116].
221 Risk v Northern Territory of Australia [2006] FCA 404 (Unreported, Dowsett J, 13 April 2006) [805].
222 Ibid [812]–[840].
223 Risk v Northern Territory of Australia [2007] FCAFC 46 (Unreported, French, Finn and Sundberg JJ, 5 April 2007) [25].
224 Ibid [82].
225 Ibid [83]–[85].
226 Ibid [98]. An application for special leave to the High Court was dismissed by majority on 31 August 2007.
227 Yorta Yorta (2001) 110 FCR 244, 263 [59] (Black CJ).
228 Bennion, above n 163, 499–508.
229 Connolly, above n 159, 118–21.