Истец S157/2002 v Содружество
| Истец S157/2002 v Содружество | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Суд | Высокий суд Австралии |
| Полное имя корпуса | Истец S157 /2002 против Содружества Австралии |
| Решенный | 4 февраля 2003 г. |
| Цитаты | [2003] HCA 2 , (2003) 211 CLR 476 |
| Членство суда | |
| Судьи сидят | Gleeson CJ, Gaudron , McHugh , Gummow , Kirby , Hayne и Callinan JJ |
| Case opinions | |
| (7:0) The privative clauses were valid, but did not affect the availability of constitutional writs (per Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne, Gleeson CJ and Callinan J concurring) | |
Истец S157/2002 v Содружество , [ 1 ] Также известен как «S157», является решением Высокого суда Австралии .
Это важный случай в австралийском административном праве, в частности, за его владения о неспособности парламента ограничить доступность конституционных видов. [ 2 ]
По состоянию на сентябрь 2020 года «S157» является 12 -м наиболее цитируемым делом Высокого суда. [ 3 ] [ 4 ]
Фон
[ редактировать ]Истец, [ Примечание 1 ] хотел бросить вызов решению Трибунала по пересмотру беженцев, отказавшись ему в защитной визе. Два раздела Закона о миграции 1958 года (CTH) отказали ему в праве обжаловать решение. Истец обратился в Высокий суд, утверждая, что соответствующие разделы не применяются к заявлениям о помощи в соответствии с S75 (v) Конституцией . [ 5 ] S474, предполагаемый для принятия определенных решений («Решения о привативном пункте») окончательно и не поддаются представлению, утверждая, что такие решения «не подлежат запрету, мандамусу, судебному запрету, декларации или Certiorari в любом суде на любом счете». [6] S486A placed time limits on applications to the High Court in respect of these decisions.[7]
The plaintiff argued that s474 was directly inconsistent with s75(v) and therefore invalid.
The privative clause was based on that considered in R v Hickman,[8] with Philip Ruddock, the Minister for Immigration, stating:[9]
Members may be aware that the effect of a privative clause such as that used in Hickman's case is to expand the legal validity of the acts done and the decisions made by decision-makers. The result is to give decision makers wider lawful operation for their decisions, and this means that the grounds on which those decisions can be challenged in the Federal and High Courts are narrower than currently.
Decision
[edit]The Hickman principle was, the majority held, simply a rule of construction allowing apparently incompatible statutory provisions to be reconciled.[1]: p 501
Two rules of construction relating to privative clauses were held to exist:
- "if there is an opposition between the Constitution and any such provision, it should be resolved by adopting [an] interpretation [consistent with the Constitution if] that is fairly open." (per Hickman); and
- Privative clauses are construed strictly.
Applying these principles led to the conclusion that although the two sections were valid, they did not apply to the plaintiff's action in the High Court because the section did not extend to decisions affected by jurisdictional error.[2] Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ said:
104. The reservation to this Court by the Constitution of the jurisdiction in all matters in which the named constitutional writs or an injunction are sought against an officer of the Commonwealth is a means of assuring to all people affected that officers of the Commonwealth obey the law and neither exceed nor neglect any jurisdiction which the law confers on them. The centrality, and protective purpose, of the jurisdiction of this Court in that regard places significant barriers in the way of legislative attempts (by privative clauses or otherwise) to impair judicial review of administrative action.[1]: p 513
Notes
[edit]- ^ The effect of the Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No. 6) 2001 (Cth) is that courts cannot name plaintiffs seeking protection visas in order to reduce the potential that the publication the applicants name may create further protection claims for people in Australia or put their families and colleagues overseas at risk of harm: "Explanatory Memorandum".
References
[edit]- ^ Jump up to: a b c Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2, (2003) 211 CLR 476 "judgment summary" (PDF). High Court. 4 February 2003.
- ^ Jump up to: a b French CJ (25 March 2011). "The Role of the Courts in Migration Law" (PDF).
- ^ Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=&party1=&party2=&court=High%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAustralia&juris=&article=&author=&year1=&year2=&synonyms=on&filter=on&cases-cited=&legis-cited=§ion=&large-search-ok=1&sort-order=cited
- ^ Note: data is as of September 2020
- ^ Constitution (Cth) s 75 Original jurisdiction of High Court.
- ^ Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 474 Decisions under Act are final.
- ^ Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 486A Time limit on applications to the High Court for judicial review.
- ^ R v Hickman; ex parte Fox & Clinton [1945] HCA 53, (1945) 70 CLR 598 (4 February 2003), High Court (Australia).
- ^ Philip Ruddock, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (26 September 2001). "Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 2001". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. p. 31561.