Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T01:14:16.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Courts and Social Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Ronald Sackville
Ronald Sackville*
Affiliation:
Federal Court of Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The relationship between courts and social change can be viewed from at least two perspectives. The first, frequently explored in the literature, invites consideration of how courts respond to social change, real or apparent. The second directs attention to whether the courts themselves can bring about social change.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 373 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 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

A revised version of a paper delivered at the Australian Lawyers and Social Change Conference, September 2004. I acknowledge the valuable research assistance of May Miller-Dawkins in the preparation of this paper.

References

1 See, eg, Roger, Cotterrell, The Sociology of Law: An Introduction (1984)Google Scholar ch 2; Gerald, N Rosenberg, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? (1991)Google Scholar ch 1; Lawrence, Lessig, ‘The Regulation of Social Meaning’ (1995) 62 University Chicago Law Review 943Google Scholar.

2 Chief Justice Anthony Murray Gleeson, ‘Out of Touch or Out of Reach?’, (Speech delivered at the Judicial Conference of Australia Colloquium, Adelaide, 2 October 2004).

3 Mr Dooley was the creation of Finley Peter Dunne, Mr Dooley’s Opinions (1901), cited by Rosenberg, above n 1, 13.

4 John, Gava, ‘The Rise of the Hero Judge’ (2001) 24 University of New South Wales Law Journal 747Google Scholar, 747–8. See also Haig, Patapan, Judging Democracy: The New Politics of the High Court of Australia (2000) 6Google Scholar.

5 347 US 483 (1954).

6 Gordon, E Marshall (ed), Dictionary of Sociology (1998) 65Google Scholar.

7 Eric, A Posner, ‘Law, Economics and Inefficient Norms’ (1996) 144 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1697Google Scholar, 1699.

8 Ibid.

9 Cotterrell, above n 1, 86, citing Talcott, Parsons, ‘Durkheim’s Contribution to the Theory of Integration of Social Systems’ in Kurt, H Wolff (ed), Essays on Sociology and Philosophy by Emile Durkheim et al (1964) 8Google Scholar.

10 Hans, Haferkamp and Neil, J Smelser (eds), Social Change and Modernity (1992) 2Google Scholar.

11 Ibid.

12 For illustrations see Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd (1999) 202 CLR 1 (copyright in computer software); Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment v Stevens (2003) 132 FCR 31 (circumvention of technological protection measures); Genetics Institute Inc v Kirin —Amgen Inc (No 3) (1998) 156 ALR 30 (patentability of invention using DNA techniques to produce polypeptide proteins).

13 Grain Pool of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 202 CLR 479 (upholding the constitutional validity of the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 (Cth).

14 Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575 (internet defamation).

15 Such as the values implicit in the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth); cf Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, 41–2 (Brennan J). For a study of the circumstances in which normative changes cause decisions to lose force as precedents, see William, N Eskridge Jr, ‘Lawrence’s Jurisprudence of Tolerance: Judicial Review to Lower the Stakes of Identity Politics’ (2004) 88 Minnesota Law Review 1021Google Scholar.

16 (2002) 212 CLR 338.

17 Ibid 363 (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

18 JusticeMichael, Adams, ‘Heroes and Heresy: Myth Meets Legal Fundamentalism’ (2004) 78 Australian Law Journal 587Google Scholar.

19 Ibid 588, referring to Gava, above n 4.

20 Gava, above n 4, 747, 749, 752.

21 Greg, Craven, ‘The High Court of Australia: A Study in the Abuse of Power’ (1999) 22 University of New South Wales Law Journal 216, 217Google Scholar.

22 JusticeJohn, Dyson Heydon, ‘Judicial Activism and the Death of the Rule of Law’ (2003) 47 Quadrant 9, 14Google Scholar.

23 Tom, Campbell, ‘Judicial Activism — Justice or Treason?’ (2003) 10 Otago Law Review 307Google Scholar, 311–13.

24 Heydon, above n 22, 10.

25 Ibid.

26 Campbell, above n 23, 312. Oddly enough, Professor Campbell regards the Mabo decision (Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1) as compatible with ‘democratic positivism’. He accepts that the decision was certainly not incremental, since it threatened the very basis of Australian property law. Yet he says that it was in order for the High Court to consider the ‘relevant law of occupation in the light of an improved knowledge of historical facts’: ibid 324. But why? Was Mabo consistent with ‘such existing, clear, positive law as (was then) available’?

27 Julius, Stone, Precedent and Law: Dynamics of Common Law Growth (1985) 271Google Scholar, cited by Frank, Carrigan, ‘A Blast from the Past: The Resurgence of Legal Formalism’ (2003) 27 Melbourne University Law Review 163, 165Google Scholar.

28 Ronald, Sackville, ‘The Doctrine of Immunity of Instrumentalities in the United States and Australia: A Comparative Analysis’ (1969) 7 Melbourne University Law Review 15, 53–7Google Scholar.

29 See Carrigan, above n 27, 172–4. Sir Owen Dixon’s approach to s 92 was discarded by a unanimous High Court in Cole v Whitfield (1988) 165 CLR 360.

30 JusticeSusan, Kenny, ‘The High Court on Constitutional Law: the 2002 Term’ (2003) 26 University of New South Wales Law Journal 210, 219Google Scholar, citing Philip, Bobbitt, Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution (1982) 61Google Scholar.

31 Ibid 220, referring to Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR 1, 40 (Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ).

32 JusticeKeith, Mason, ‘What is Wrong with Top-Down Legal Reasoning?’ (2004) 78 Australian Law Journal 574Google Scholar.

33 (1996) 186 CLR 140, 231–2.

34 Communist Party of Australia v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, 193.

35 Singh v Commonwealth (2004) 209 ALR 355, 364 (Gleeson CJ) discussing Cheng v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 248 (which construed s 80 of the Constitution as to require unanimous verdicts in trials on indictment for offences against the Commonwealth). Compare the comments of Callinan J in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 199, 336–7.

36 (2003) 215 CLR 1. The issue was whether a couple who had become parents of an unplanned child as a consequence of medical negligence could recover as damages the cost of raising and maintaining the child.

37 Ibid 128.

38 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511, which invalidated the cross-vesting scheme purporting to invest federal courts with jurisdiction in State matters.

39 Ibid 548.

40 Ibid 540.

41 (1999) 197 CLR 510, 531.

42 See, eg, the analysis of Grollo v Palmer (1995) 184 CLR 348 (upholding the grant of power to federal judges to issue warrants for listening devices) and Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 189 CLR 1 (invalidating the nomination of a federal judge to prepare a report for a Minister) in Elizabeth, Handsley, ‘Public Confidence in the Judiciary: A Red Herring for the Separation of Judicial Power’ (1998) 20 Sydney Law Review 183Google Scholar, especially 199–200.

43 See Singh v Commonwealth (2004) 209 ALR 355, 359 (Gleeson CJ).

44 For a similar view see JusticeFrank, H Easterbrook, ‘Do Liberals and Conservatives Differ in Judicial Activism?’ (2002) 73 University of Colorado Law Review 1403Google Scholar.

45 (1988) 165 CLR 360. See Miller v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 556, 570–2.

46 The Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and the States have a statutory right to intervene in constitutional matters before the High Court: Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78A.

47 The Federalist (No 78) (Eastern Press ed, 1979) 520.

48 JusticeMichael, McHugh, ‘The Strengths of the Weakest Arm’ (2004) 25 Australian Bar Review 181Google Scholar.

49 Ibid 182.

50 Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth (1948) 76 CLR 1. The proceedings were ultimately determined by the Privy Council: (1949) 79 CLR 497.

51 Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1.

52 Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1.

53 Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1.

54 See Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 189 CLR 1; Kable v DPP (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51.

55 Fardon v A-G (Qld) (2004) 210 ALR 50, 58 [23] (Gleeson CJ); 78 [102] (Gummow J); 88–9 [144] (Kirby J).

56 See generally Handsley, above n 42.

57 Chief JusticeAnthony, Murray Gleeson, ‘Public Confidence in the Judiciary’ (2002) 76 Australian Law Journal 558Google Scholar.

58 Compare the distinction between community attitudes and community values advanced by John, Braithwaite, ‘Community Values and Australian Jurisprudence’ (1995) 17 Sydney Law Review 351Google Scholar.

59 Gleeson, above n 57, 561.

60 Chief JusticeAnthony, Murray Gleeson, The Rule of Law and the Constitution (2000) 127Google Scholar.

61 Indeed legislative reforms which are at odds with community norms are likely to fail, as illustrated by the extent of non-compliance with copyright laws: Christopher, Jensen, ‘Note: The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same: Copyright, Digital Technology, and Social Norms’ (2003) 56 Stanford Law Review 531Google Scholar.

62 Brian, Galligan, Politics of the High Court: A Study of the Judicial Branch of Government in Australia (1987) 176Google Scholar.

63 Ex Parte Lo Pak (1888) 9 NSWLR(L) 221.

64 Ex Parte Leong Kum (1888) 9 NSWLR(L) 250; Ex parte Woo Tin (1888) 9 NSWLR(L) 493.

65 Ex Parte Woo Tin (1888) 9 NSWLR(L) 493, 493–4.

66 Interestingly enough, the ‘political crisis’, as Isaacs J described it, was addressed by convening an Inter-Colonial Conference to discuss the enactment of uniform legislation to restrict Chinese immigration. The conference led the five mainland Colonies to legislate so as to prohibit the entry of Chinese into the colonies except in very limited circumstances. The conflict between the judiciary and the Executive was therefore resolved in favour of the latter, but only by the intervention of the legislatures. The sequence of events is described by Isaacs J in R v McFarlane; Ex parte O’Flanagan and O’Kelly (1923) 32 CLR 518, 558–61. I am grateful to Justice Paul Finn for drawing these cases to my attention.

67 When the High Court recently reaffirmed the immunity of advocates for forensic conduct, the hostile media response was tempered somewhat by calls for legislation to reverse the decision: see, for example, Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney), 14 March 2005, 12. The case is D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 214 ALR 92.

68 See David, Hambly and John, L Goldring (eds), Australian Lawyers and Social Change (1974)Google Scholar.

69 Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, Law and Poverty in Australia (Second Main Report, 1975) (Professor R Sackville, Commissioner) 2.

70 347 US 583 (1954).

71 Rosenberg, above n 1. The book analyses the ‘mostly disappointing’ results of efforts to use the courts to promote social reform in a number of areas including civil rights, abortion, women’s rights, the environment and reapportionment of electorates: 336.

72 Ibid 39–40, citing, inter alia, Robert L Carter, ‘The Warren Court and Desegregation’ (1968) 67 Michigan Law Review 237, 237; Aryeh Neier, Only Judgment: The Limits of Litigation in Social Change (1982) 57; Harvie J Wilkinson, From Brown to Bakke: The Supreme Court and School Integration, 1954–1978 (1979) 6.

73 See, for example, Peter, H Schuck, ‘Book Review: Public Law Litigation and Social Reform’ (1993) 102 Yale Law Journal 1763Google Scholar.

74 Rosenberg, above n 1, 338. By ‘Constrained Court’, Rosenberg means a Hamiltonian view of courts as ‘weak, ineffective and powerless’: 3.

75 The literature is discussed in an article by Kathleen O’Sullivan, ‘What Happened to ‘“Brown”?’ New York Review of Books, 23 September 2004, 47.

76 Ibid 49.

77 Michael, J Klarman, From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality (2004)Google Scholar.

78 163 US 537 (1896).

79 Klarman, above n 77, 19–21.

80 Ibid 48–52.

81 Ibid 443.

82 Ibid 444–6.

83 Ibid 452.

84 Brown v Board of Education, 349 US 294 (1955).

85 Klarman, above n 77, 312–20.

86 Ibid 343.

87 Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958).

88 Galligan, above n 62, 169 ff.

89 Ibid 203–7.

90 Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth).

91 Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, 29.

92 Ronald, Sackville, ‘The Emerging Australian Law of Native Title: Some North American Comparisons’ (2000) 74 Australian Law Journal 820, 831Google Scholar.

93 See particularly Div 2B of Part 2 of the Native Title Act, inserted by the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cth), which confirms past extinguishment of native title by ‘certain valid or validated acts’.

94 Wilson v Anderson (2002) 213 CLR 401.