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: 01 January 2025
I would like to thank Adam Webster for his extremely helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft. Errors and omissions remain my own.
1 Dixon, Rosalind, ‘The Functional Constitution: Re-Reading the 2014 High Court Constitutional Term’ (2015) 43(3) Federal Law Review 455, 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Stone, Adrienne, ‘The Limits of Constitutional Text and Structure’ (2005) 28 University of New South Wales Law Journal 842.Google Scholar
3 Although note there has been identified an increased use of secondary materials and reliance on foreign judgments since the time of the Mason Court. Smyth, Russell, ‘Other Than “Accepted Sources of Law”?: A Quantitative Study of Secondary Source Citations in the High Court’ (1999) 22 University of New South Wales Law Journal 19.Google Scholar
4 Dixon, above n 1, 470.
5 [2015] HCA 34.
6 Ibid [2].
7 Ibid [59]–[61].
8 Ibid [330]–[331], [361]–[362], [379].
9 J D Heydon, ‘Constitutional Facts’, in Samuel Griffith Society Proceedings, (2011) volume 23, ch 10, 85. Constitutional facts are generally seen as a type of legislative fact, distinct from an adjudicative fact, adopting the distinction drawn in Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law Treatise (1958), s 15.03. See also Lane, P H, ‘Facts in Constitutional Law’ (1963) 37 Australian Law Journal 108Google Scholar; Selway, Bradley, ‘Use of History and Other Facts in the Reasoning of the High Court’ (2001) 20 University of Tasmania Law Review 129, 135.Google Scholar For consideration of similar issues in the Canadian context, see Hogg, P W, ‘Proof of Facts in Constitutional Cases’ (1976) 26 University of Toronto Law Journal 386, 397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Either through the procedural mechanism of the special case: High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) rule 27.08; or a removal under the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 40; or a demurrer decided on the basis that the facts alleged by the plaintiff are correct: High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) rule 27.07.
11 Kenny, Susan, ‘Constitutional Fact Ascertainment (With Reference to the Practice of the Supreme Court of the United States and the High Court of Australia)’ (1990) 1 Public Law Review 134, 149.Google Scholar
12 Ibid 158.
13 Holmes, J D, ‘Evidence in Constitutional Cases’ (1949) 23 Australian Law Journal 235, 237–8.Google Scholar This is most often the case in relation to s 92 cases, a trend that continues under the modern development of the doctrine. See, eg, discussion in Betfair Pty Ltd v Racing New South Wales (2012) 249 CLR 217, 274–5 [70] (Heydon J).
14 Stenhouse v Coleman (1944) 69 CLR 457, 469 (Dixon J).
15 Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, 196 (Dixon J); Holland v Jones (1917) 23 CLR 149, 153 (Isaacs J).
16 Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307, 483 (Callinan J) (citations omitted).
17 Heydon, above n 9, 90.
18 Gerhardy v Brown (1985) 159 CLR 70, 142.
19 North Eastern Dairy Co Ltd v Dairy Industry Authority of New South Wales (1975) 134 CLR 559, 622 (Jacobs J).
20 Strayer, B L, The Canadian Constitution and the Courts (3rd ed, 1988) 292Google Scholar, quoted in R v Bonin (1989) 47 CCC (3d) 230, 248. See also Heydon, above n 9, 89.
21 Commonwealth Freighters Pty Ltd v Sneddon (1959) 102 CLR 280, 292.
22 See, eg, D’Emden v Pedder (1904) 1 CLR 91, 118 (Griffith CJ); see also Kenny, above n 11, 149.
23 Gerhardy v Brown (1985) 159 CLR 70, 141–2. See also Patrick Brazil, ‘The Ascertainment of Facts in Australian Constitutional Cases’ (1970–71) 4(1) Federal Law Review 65, 67.
24 Heydon, above n 9, 88.
25 See, eg, Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, 196–7 (Dixon J), Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307, 486–7 (Callinan J). For an analysis of the use of constitutional facts in some of the earlier defence power cases, see Holmes, above n 13, 236.
26 Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, 255–6 (Fullagar J).
27 Hogg, above n 9, 396.
28 Heydon, above n 9, 90.
29 Ibid 91. See also Phillips, P D, ‘Evidence in Constitutional Cases’ (1949) 23 Australian Law Journal 235, 242.Google Scholar
30 Keane, Patrick, ‘Foreword’, in Appleby, Gabrielle, Keyzer, Patrick and Williams, John, Public Sentinels: A Comparative Study of Australian Solicitors-General (Ashgate Publishing, 2014) xi, xii.Google Scholar
31 Appleby, Gabrielle, The Role of the Solicitor-General: Negotiating Law, Politics and the Public Interest (Hart Publishing, forthcoming 2016).Google Scholar
32 (1992) 177 CLR 292. See Mason, Keith, ‘Aspects of the History of the Solicitor-General in Australia’ in Appleby, Gabrielle, Keyzer, Patrick and Williams, John, Public Sentinels: A Comparative Analysis of Australian Solicitors-General (Hart Publishing, 2015) 23, 44.Google Scholar
33 Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292, 312.
34 Ibid 349.
35 (2012) 247 CLR 304.
36 Attorney-General for Western Australia, ‘Intervener's Submissions’, Submission in RCB as litigation guardian of EKV, CEV, CIV and LRV v Forrest, No B28 of 2012, 20 July 2012, 5–6.
37 (2000) 200 CLR 322 (‘Eastman’).
38 Transcript of Proceedings, Eastman [1999] HCATrans 65 (24 March 1999).
39 The date of self-government in the Northern Territory.
40 Transcript of Proceedings, Eastman [1999] HCATrans 65 (24 March 1999).
41 Ibid.
42 Eastman (2000) 200 CLR 322, 332. See also the approach in Victoria v Commonwealth and Hayden (1975) 134 CLR 338 (‘AAP Case’), 417–19 (Murphy J).
43 Tribe, L, American Constitutional Law (2nd ed, Foundation Press, 1988) 363.Google Scholar See also Waldron, Jeremy, Law and Disagreement (Clarendon Press, 1999) 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44 See, eg, those cases highlighted above, as well as those referred to in Dixon, above n 1.
45 See, eg, Keyzer, Patrick, Open Constitutional Courts (Federation Press, 2010) ch 4Google Scholar; Williams, George, ‘The Amicus Curiae and the Intervener in the High Court of Australia: A Comparative Analysis’ (2000) 28(3) Federal Law Review 365, 397–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46 See also Kenny, above n 11, 135, arguing that a court of constitutional review has, first, an obligation ‘to identify and disclose which sorts of facts it considers relevant’.
47 See, eg, Wurridjal v Commonwealth (2008) 237 CLR 309. Contra APLA Ltd v Legal Services Commissioner of New South Wales (2005) 224 CLR 322; see also Walker, Kristen, ‘Amici Curiae and Access to Constitutional Justice: A Practical Perspective’ (2010) 22(3) Bond Law Review 111Google Scholar; Willheim, Ernst, ‘Amici Curiae and Access to Constitutional Justice in the High Court of Australia’ (2010) 22(3) Bond Law Review 126.Google Scholar
48 Muller v Oregon (1908) 208 US 412.
49 See also Williams, above n 45. For a critical examination of the arguments, such as that it would result in a flood of amici, or that it would privilege special interest groups, see Walker, above n 47, 113.
50 Andrea Durbach, ‘Amicus Curiae – Still Stinging from the Rebuff’ in Hearing the People: Amicus Curiae in Our Courts (Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Paper No 95/16, 1995) 6, 9, referred to in Williams, above n 45, 367.
51 Kenny, Susan, ‘Interveners and Amici Curiae in the High Court’ (1998) 20 Adelaide Law Review 159, 170.Google Scholar
52 Williams, above n 45, 394.
53 (1997) 189 CLR 579, 604 (citations omitted).
54 (2014) 252 CLR 416.
55 See, for example, the division of the intervening States in Williams v Commonwealth (No 1) (2012) 248 CLR 156 and also the failure of the States to intervene to protect State jurisdiction from an expanded interpretation of the scope of the federal marriage power in Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory (2013) 250 CLR 441.
56 See further Williams, above n 45, 389–90; Kenny, above n 51; Mason, Anthony ‘Interveners and Amici Curiae in the High Court: A Comment’ (1998) 20 Adelaide Law Review 173.Google Scholar
57 See <http://www.hcourt.gov.au>.