Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T14:10:31.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Slumbering Sovereign: Sir Owen Dixon's Common Law Constitution Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Michael Wait
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

"The Common Law abhors infiniteness"

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 57 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 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

*

I am indebted to Chief Justice Doyle of the Supreme Court of South Australia, and Professor Michael Detmold and Dr John Williams of the University of Adelaide for their comments and criticisms regarding earlier drafts of this article. I would also like to thank Belinda Baker, Macgregor Duncan, Geraldine Sladden, Pierina Reina and Noel Wait for their help.

References

1 Ferrer v Arden (1599) 6 Co Rep 7a; (1599) 77 ER 263.

2 For example, Gleeson, AM, “Judicial Legitimacy” (2000) 20 Aust Bar Rev 4Google Scholar; Gummow, WMC, Change and Continuity: Statute, Equity and Federalism (1999) at ixxCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 In this paper I adopt the meaning of sovereignty offered by McHugh J in McGinty v Western Australia (1996) 186 CLR 140 at 237: “ultimate sovereignty resides in the body which made and can amend the Constitution”.

4 [1999] HCA 30; (1999) 163 ALR 648.

5 Ibid at [70].

6 Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106 at 138 per Mason CJ; Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1 at 71 per Deane and Toohey JJ; McGinty v Western Australia (1996) 186 CLR 140 at 230 per McHugh J.

7 (1997) 189 CLR 520.

8 Wright, H, “Sovereignty of the People – The New Constitutional Grundnorm?” (1998) 26 F L Rev 165 at 175-176Google Scholar.

9 (1997) 189 CLR 520 at 566; recently reaffirmed in John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson [2000] HCA 36; (2000) 172 ALR 625; at [34] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ and at [142] per Kirby J.

10 This appears to have been the approach of many commentators, including: A Stone, “Freedom of Political Communication, the Constitution and the Common Law” (1998) 26 F L Rev 219; N Aroney, “The Structure of Constitutional Revolutions: Are the Lange, Levy and Kruger Cases a Return to Normal Science?” (1998) 21 UNSWLJ 645 at 655-656; M Jones, “Free Speech Revisited: The Implications of Lange & Levy“ (1997) 4 AJHR 188 at 200.

11 Dixon, O, “The Statute of Westminster, 1931” in Jesting Pilate (1965) 82 at 82Google Scholar.

12 Ibid at 99.

13 Cf Goldsworthy, J, The Sovereignty of Parliament: History and Philosophy (1999)Google Scholar and Winterton, G, “Constitutionally Entrenched Common Law Rights: Sacrificing Means to Ends?” in C Sampford and K Preston (eds), Interpreting Constitutions (1996) 121 at 136Google Scholar.

14 Cornford, T, “Legal Remedies Against the Crown and its Officers” in Suskin, M Payne, S (eds), The Nature of the Crown (1999) 233 at 233CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Seddon, N, “The Crown” (2000) 28 F L Rev 245 at 256Google Scholar

16 Dixon, O, “Upon Taking the Oath of Office as Chief Justice” in Jesting Pilate (1965) 245 at 247Google Scholar.

17 Dixon, O, “The Common Law as an Ultimate Constitutional Foundation” in Jesting Pilate (1965) 203 at 205Google Scholar.

18 Latham, J, “Interpretation of the Constitution” in R Else-Mitchell (ed), Essays on the Australian Constitution (1961) 1 at 4Google Scholar.

19 Quick, J Garran, R, Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (1901) at 285Google Scholar.

20 Dicey, AV, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th ed 1959) at 73Google Scholar.

21 Speech of Lord Haldane in the House of Commons delivered on the motion for leave to introduce the bill for the Australian Constitution Act, quoted in the Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129 at 147, per Knox CJ, Isaacs, Rich and Starke JJ.

22 1865 (UK), s 2.

23 R v Burah (1878) 3 App Cas 889 at 904, per Lord Selborne.

24 Zines, L, The High Court and the Constitution (4th ed 1997) at 139Google Scholar.

25 Blackshield, T Williams, G, Australian Constitutional Law and Theory: Commentary and Materials (2nd ed 1998) at 131Google Scholar.

26 Dixon, O, “Sources of Legal Authority” in Jesting Pilate (1965) 198 at 200CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 A Deakin, quoted in J Bennett, Keystone of the Federal Arch: A Historical Memoir of the High Court of Australia to 1980 (1980) at iii.

28 AV Dicey above n 20 at 147-148.

29 Dixon, O, “The Law and the Constitution” in Jesting Pilate (1965) 38 at 50Google Scholar.

30 AV Dicey above n 20 at 175.

31 O Dixon above n 26 at 199.

32 Windeyer, V, “'A Birthright and Inheritance' – Establishment of the Rule of Law in Australia” (1962) 1 U Tas LR 635 at 653Google Scholar. The notion of the common law as a birthright was first expounded by Blackstone, W in Commentaries on the Laws of England: Volume I, Of the Rights of Persons (5th ed 1773) at 107Google Scholar.

33 9 Geo IV, c 83, 1828 (UK).

34 V Windeyer above n 32 at 636.

35 Uther v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1947) 74 CLR 508 at 521.

36 (1931) 44 CLR 394.

37 Ibid at 427 per Dixon J.

38 O Dixon above n 29 at 47.

39 Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865 (UK), s 2.

40 1931 (UK).

41 O Dixon above n 11 at 86.

42 Detmold, M, The Australian Commonwealth: A Fundamental Analysis of its Constitution (1985) at 7-8Google Scholar.

43 Moore, H, The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (2nd ed 1910) at 66Google Scholar.

44 O Dixon above n 29 at 42.

45 O Dixon above n 26 at 200.

46 O Dixon above n 29 at 59.

47 AV Dicey above n 20 at 149.

48 Fraser, A, “False Hopes: Implied Rights and Popular Sovereignty in the Australian Constitution” (1994) 16 Syd LR 228 at 228Google Scholar.

49 Dixon, O, “The Statute of Westminster, 1931” in Jesting Pilate (1965) at 82Google Scholar.

50 Ibid at 99.

51 AV Dicey above n 20 at 149.

52 Dixon, O, “The Common Law as an Ultimate Constitutional Foundation”, “Sources of Legal Authority” and “The Law and the Constitution” in Jesting Pilate (1965)Google Scholar.

53 Salmond, J, Jurisprudence (12th ed 1966) at 111-112CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 O Dixon above n 17 at 207.

55 Ibid at 204, quoting Bracton, H, On the Laws and Customs of England: Volume II (1968) at 304CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Allan, TRS “The Common Law as Constitution; Fundamental Rights and First Principles” in C Saunders (ed), Courts of Final Jurisdiction: The Mason Court in Australia (1996) at 156Google Scholar.

57 O Dixon above n 29 at 43.

58 O Dixon above n 26 at 199.

59 R Dworkin, Law´s Empire (1986) at viii. For a comparison of the jurisprudence of Dixon and Dworkin see: D Dawson, Do Judges Make Law? Too Much? (unpublished paper, copy held in the law library at the University of Adelaide) at 5-6.

60 O Dixon above n 16 at 247.

61 D Dawson above n 59 at 4.

62 Dixon, O, “Concerning Judicial Method” in Jesting Pilate (1965) 152 at 165Google Scholar.

63 Blackshield, T, “The Implied Freedom of Communication” in G Lindell (ed), Future Directions in Australian Constitutional Law: Essays in Honour of Professor Leslie Zines (1994) 232 at 260Google Scholar.

64 O Dixon above n 17 at 205.

65 Dixon, O, “Government Under the American Constitution” in Jesting Pilate (1965) 106 at 106Google Scholar.

66 Mason, K, “The Rule of Law” in P Finn (ed), Essays on Law and Government, Volume I: Principles and Values (1996) 114 at 123Google Scholar. Though Mason is not here referring to Dixon, the distinction that he draws is, I believe, pertinent to Dixon´s method.

67 O Dixon above n 17 at 206.

68 R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers´ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254 at 271-272 per Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Fullagar and Kitto JJ.

69 Gageler, S, “Foundations of Australian Federalism and the Role of Judicial Review” (1987) 17 F L Rev 162 at 175Google Scholar; Mason, A, “Future Directions in Australian Law” (1987) 13 Monash LR 149 at 158Google Scholar; K Booker and A Glass, “What Makes the Engineers Case a Classic?” in Coper, M Williams, G (eds), How Many Cheers for Engineers? (1997) 45 at 52Google Scholar; Williams, G, “The Impact of Engineers: Engineers and Implied Rights” in Coper, M Williams, G (eds), How Many Cheers for Engineers? (1997) 105 at 107Google Scholar; L Zines above n 24 at 425.

70 K Booker and A Glass above n 69 at 57.

71 D Dawson above n 59 at 4 - 5, quoting from one of Dixon´s letters to Latham.

72 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129.

73 Ibid at 152 per Knox CJ, Isaacs, Rich and Starke JJ.

74 Craven, G, “The Crisis of Constitutional Literalism in Australia” in HP Lee and G Winterton (eds), Australian Constitutional Perspectives (1992) 1 at 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The debate as to the 'true' meaning of the Engineers´ Case is long-standing. For instance, two early contributions include a literalist interpretation by W Wynns, Legislative and Executive Power (1936) and a legalist analysis by Garran, A, “Development of the Constitution” (1924) 40 LQR 202Google Scholar.

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

76 Ibid at 193 per Dixon J.

77 Ibid at 193 per Dixon J.

78 Stenhouse v Coleman (1944) 69 CLR 457.

79 Ibid at 470 per Dixon J.

80 L Zines above n 24 at 239.

81 Winterton, G, “The Separation of Judicial Power as an Implied Bill of Rights” in G Lindell (ed), Future Directions in Australian Constitutional Law: Essays in Honour of Professor Leslie Zines (1994) 185 at 187Google Scholar. Although in both R v Federal Court of Bankruptcy; Ex parte Lowenstein (1938) 59 CLR 556, and R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, Dixon CJ derived the separation of powers doctrine from the text of the Constitution, his comments in Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1 at 193 clearly indicate that he regarded the doctrine to be a common law one which had been inscribed into the Constitution.

82 For example, Bonham´s Case (1610) 8 Co Rep 107a; 77 ER 646.

83 O Dixon above n 17 at 205.

84 Ibid at 206.

85 O Dixon above n 29 at 41.

86 O Dixon above n 62 at 153.

87 In the case of Trawl Industries v Effem Foods (1992) 36 FCR 406 at 411, Gummow J suggested that Dixon´s constitutionalism might provide a justification for applying various common law estoppels within federal jurisdiction.

88 (1997) 189 CLR 520.

89 Ibid at 565.

90 [1998] HCA 22; (1998) 195 CLR 337.

91 Ibid at [89] per Gummow and Hayne JJ.

92 Interestingly P Keyzer has recently suggested that the right to natural justice might soon

emerge, not as a citizenship right, but from the common law of the Constitution: P Keyzer “Pfeiffer, Lange, the common law of the Constitution and the Constitutional right to natural justice” (2000) 20 Aust Bar Rev 87.

93 [1998] HCA 30; (1999) 163 ALR 648.

94 Ibid at [70] per Gleeson CJ, Gummow & Hayne JJ.

95 WMC Gummow above n 2 at xx.

96 1986 (Cth) and 1986 (UK).

97 G Craven above n 74 at 13.

98 Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106 at 138 per Mason CJ; McGinty v Western Australia (1996) 186 CLR 140 at 230 per McHugh J, saying “the political and legal sovereignty of Australia now resides in the people of Australia”.

99 Finn, P, “A Sovereign People, A Public Trust” in P Finn (ed), Essays on Law and Government (1995) 1 at 4Google Scholar.

100 Cf Winterton, G, “Popular Sovereignty and Constitutional Continuity” (1998) 26 F L Rev 1Google Scholar.

101 H Wright above n 8 at 167.

102 Mason, A, “The Interpretation of a Constitution in a Modern Liberal Democracy” in Sampford, C Preston, K, Interpreting Constitutions: Theories, Principles and Institutions (1996) 13 at 28Google Scholar.

103 Polyukovich v Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501 at 609 and 611 per Deane J and at 613 per Gaudron J.

104 Lim v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1 at 27-29 per Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ. Gaudron J agreed at 55, though she did not regard all detention to be punitive in nature.

105 Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292 at 326 and 330 per Deane J.

106 Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455 at 502 per Gaudron J.

107 Toohey, J, “A Government of Laws, and Not of Men?” (1993) 4 PLR 158 at 170Google Scholar.

108 Wood, G, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776 – 1787 (1969) at 362Google Scholar.

109 Fraser, A, “Strong Republicanism and a Citizen's Constitution” in Hudson, W Carter, D (eds), The Republicanism Debate (1993) at 58-59Google Scholar.

110 Doyle, J, “Implications of Judicial Law-Making” in Saunders, C (ed), Courts of Final Jurisdiction (1996) 84 at 96Google Scholar.

111 S Gageler above n 69 at 173.

112 (1997) 189 CLR 520 at 567 per the Court.

113 Cf Detmold, M “Provocation to Murder: Sovereignty and Multiculture” (1997) 19 Syd LR 5 at 31, fn 91Google Scholar.

114 Kerber, L, “Making Republicanism Useful” (1988) 97 Yale LJ 1663 at 1665CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115 Patapan, H, “Politics of Interpretation” (2000) 22 Syd LR 247 at 271Google Scholar.