Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T06:01:03.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ascertainment of Facts in Australian Constitutional Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Patrick Brazil
Patrick Brazil*
Affiliation:
Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The suggestion that the Court should hear evidence touching the question of the constitutionality of a statute is somewhat startling when the possible far-reaching effect of such a course is, upon reflection, rendered apparent. (Barker v. State Fish Commission.)

Highly inconvenient as it may be, it is true of some legislative powers limited by definition … that the validity of the exercise of the power must sometimes depend on facts, facts which somehow must be ascertained by the court responsible for deciding the validity of the law. (per Dixon C.J. in Commonwealth Freighters Pty Ltd v. Sneddon).

Judicial review of the validity of legislation in a federal system may be regarded as an exercise in the interpretation of legal texts—ascertaining whether the impugned law conflicts with the superior law of the constitution—and therefore as a matter of law in which evidence plays no part or at best a subsidiary one. In the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison, Marshall C.J. ,thus described judicial review: “If two laws conflict with each other”, then in that event “the courts must decide on the operation of each”.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 1970 , pp. 65 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 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.)

Footnotes

The views in this article are expressed by the author in his personal capacity.

References

1 (1915) 88 Wash. 73, 152 Pac. 537.

2 (1959) 102 C.L.R. 280, 292.

3 (1803) 1 Cranch. 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60, 73.

4 The subject has also been examined by Holmes, J. D., “Evidence in Constitutional Cases” (1949) 23 A.L.J. 235Google Scholar and by Lane, P. H., “Facts in Constitutional Law” (1963) 37 A.L.J. 108Google Scholar.

5 Some of the cases were referred to by the writer in “Legislative History and the Sure and True Interpretation of Statutes” (1960) 4 Univ. Q.L.J. 1, 16-21.

6 See Dixon C.J. in Breen v. Sneddon (1961) 106 C.L.R. 406, 411.

7 Tamar Timber Trading Co. Pty Ltd v. Pilkington (1968) 117 C.L.R. 353, 358.

8 Allied Interstate (Qld) Pty Ltd v. Barnes (1968) 42 A.L.J.R. 348.

9 (1965) 114 C.L.R. 1,6-7.

10 (1948) 76 C.L.R. 1, 185-187.

11 (1909) 8 C.L.R. 330, 409-411.

12 (1955) 93 C.L.R. 55.

13 (1953) 88 C.L.R. 353.

14 See, in particular, Stenhouse v. Coleman (1944) 69 C.L.R. 457, 469-470.

15 (1949) 79 C.L.R. 497, 640-641.

16 [1939] A.C. 117, 130. See also Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (N.S.W.) v. W. R. Moran Pty Ltd (1939) 61 C.L.R. 735, 793 et seq.

17 Muller v. Oregon (1907) 208 U.S. 412, 421, 52 L.Ed. 551, 555.

18 State ex rel. Bentley v. Hall (1922) 178 Wis. 172, 190 N.W. 457.

19 (1951) 83 C.L.R. 1, 255-256.

20 (1947) 74 C.L.R. 400.

21 (1947) 75 C.L.R. 445.

22 (1942) 65 C.L.R. 373, 384, 385, 409.

23 (1949) 79 C.L.R.43, 51, 52.

24 (1944) 69 C.L.R. 457, 469.

25 Id., 276.

26 (1952) 85 C.L.R. 488, 507.

27 293 U.S. 194,210,79 L.Ed. 281, 289.

28 (1959) 102 C.L.R. 280.

29 (1957) 99 C.L.R. 28.

30 (1954) 91 C.L.R. 136.

31 (1947) 75 C.L.R. 445, cf. 468, 469.

32 (1947) 74 C.L.R. 400.

33 (1957) 99 C.L.R. 28, 89-92.

34 (1959) 102 C.L.R. 280, 291-292.

35 (1959) 104 C.L.R. 456.

36 (1956) 106 C.L.R. 406.

37 Id., 411.

38 Id., 412.

39 Id., 413.

40 Id., 420.

41 (1962) 107 C.L.R. 662.

42 (1967) 116 C.L.R. 1, 18, 21-22.

43 Id., 18.

44 With the passage of the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals.) Act 1968 (Cth), the unique and ultimate responsibility of the High Court in cases on s. 92 and on other sections has become further entrenched.

45 (1965) 113 C.L.R. 54.

46 (1936) 55 C.L.R. 608.

47 (1954) 92 C.L.R. 565, 598. Dixon C.l. and Kitto l. concurred with Fullagar l.

48 Id., 596.

49 Per Menzies, J. in Commonwealth Freighters Pty Ltd v. Sneddon (1959) 102 C.L.R. 280Google Scholar, 302; see also Freightlines & Construction Holding Ltd. v. New South Wales (1967) 116 C.L.R. 1, 18.

50 See Hume v. Higgins (1949) 78 C.L.R. 116, 134; Australian Textiles Pty Ltd v. The Commonwealth (1945) 71 C.L.R. 161, 180-181; Armstrong's Case [No.2] (1957) 99 C.L.R. 28, 48-49.

51 Supra n. 18.

52 Per Dixon, C.J. in Stenhouse v. Coleman (1944) 69 C.L.R. 457Google Scholar, 470.

53 Attorney-General for the Commonwealth v. The Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd (1913) 17 C.L.R. 644, 653; The Engineers Case (1920) 28 C.L.R. 129, 154.

54 See e.g. Commonwealth Freighters Ply Ltd v. Sneddon (1959) 102 C.L.R. 280, 295.

55 Hollington v. Hewthorn & Co. Ltd [1943] K.B.. 587, 594.

56 See e.g. Professor de Smith, S. A. in (1961) 24 Mod. L.R. 407Google Scholar, 408.

57 (1960) 103 C.L.R. 177.

58 Id., 189-190.

59 M'Culloch v. Maryland (1819) 4 Wheat. 316, 421, 4 L.Ed. 579, 605.

60 (1966) 115 C.L.R. 41.

61 Id.,436.

62 Jumbunna Coal Mine, No Liability v. The Victorian Coal Miners' Association (1908) 6 C.L.R. 309, 376.

63 (1951) 83 C.L.R. 1.

64 See McWhinney, E., Judicial Review in the English-Speaking World (3 ed. 1965) 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar et seq.

65 (1965) 113 C.L.R. 54.

66 (1951) 83 C.L.R. 1, 222.

67 (1955) 93 C.L.R. 127, 165.

68 (1959) 102 C.L.R. 280, 307.

69 (1951) 83 C.L.R. 1, 256.

70 See Ritchie v. Trustees Executors and Agency Co. Ltd (1951) 84 C.L.R. 553 and Poulton v. The Commonwealth (1953) 89 C.L.R. 540, 551, 593.

71 Holland v. Jones (1917) 23 C.L.R. 149,153.

72 (1951) 83 C.L.R. 1, 196.

73 See J. D. Holmes, op. cit. supra n. 4, 236.

74 (1960) 106 C.L.R. 186, 197.

75 See (1969) 43 A.L.J.R. 275, 282.

76 (1951) 83 C.L.R. 1, 224, 243-244, 263-265.

77 (1952) 87 C.L.R. 177.

78 Id., 211.

79 (1949) 79 C.L.R. 43.

80 So far as the writer is aware the Airlines' Case [No.2] has been the only case in which extensive written briefs have been submitted: see ( 1965) 113 C.L.R. 54, 58. It may be mentioned that the temptation to be expansive can be very great: in Canada, where there is a growing tendency to use the Brandeis brief, a successful appellant has been deprived of costs because his counsel subjected the Court to a brief of 912 mimeographed pages and anappendix of eighty-six pages: Saumur v. Quebec [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, [1953] 4 D.L.R. 641.

81 The Commonwealth v. New South Wales (1923) 32 C.L.R. 200, 209.

82 See Frankfurter, J., Zorach v. Clauson (1951) 343 U.S. 306Google Scholar, 322, 96 L.Ed. 954,966.