Territory Stories

Balance

Details:

Title

Balance

Collection

Law Society Northern Territory; PublicationNT; E-Journals

Date

2018

Notes

This publication contains many links to external sites. These external sites may no longer be active.; Made available via the Publications (Legal Deposit) Act 2004 (NT).; Celebrating 50 years 1968 - 2018 Law Society NT

Language

English

Subject

Law -- Northern Territory -- Periodicals.; Law Society of the Northern Territory -- Periodicals.

Publisher name

Law Society Northern Territory

Place of publication

Darwin

Volume

Issue no. 1

Copyright owner

Law Society Northern Territory

Parent handle

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/294620

Citation address

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/396081

Page content

41 B A L A N C E M A R C H 2 0 1 8 Andrew Yuiles High Court Judgments NOVEMBER C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W Legislative power s75(v) of the Constitution Migration decisions Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Te Puia v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 33 (6 September 2017) concerned s 503A of the Migration Act 1954 (Cth), which allowed the Minister not to disclose information to a court on judicial review of certain migration decisions. The visas of Graham and Te Puia were cancelled under s 501(3) of the Act. In making his decision in each case, the Minister considered information that was purportedly protected from disclosure by s 503A. Section 503A(2)(c) prevents the Minister from being required to divulge or communicate certain information to a court when the court is reviewing a purported exercise of power by the Minister under ss 501, 501A, 501B or 501C of the Act, to which the information is relevant. Graham and Te Puia argued that s 503A(2) is constitutionally invalid because it requires the relevant court to exercise judicial power inconsistently with the essential characteristics of a court; or because it is inconsistent with the right of individuals to seek judicial review pursuant to s 75(v) of the Constitution. A majority of the Court upheld the second point. The majority held that Parliament cannot enact a law that denies the High Court (or another court when exercising jurisdiction conferred under s 77(i) or (iii) of the Constitution) the ability to enforce the limits of a Commonwealth officers power when exercising jurisdiction under s 75(v). In practical terms, s 503A prevented access to material relevant to the exercise of power under review and relevant to determination of whether the power had been exercised lawfully. It amounted to a substantial curtailment of the capacity of the court exercising jurisdiction. To the extent that it operated on the High Court in its exercise of jurisdiction under s 75(v), or on the Federal Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under ss 476A(1) and (2) of the Act, it was invalid. Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, and Gordon JJ jointly; Edelman J dissenting. Answers to Special Case given.


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this website may contain the names, voices and images of people who have died, as well as other culturally sensitive content. Please be aware that some collection items may use outdated phrases or words which reflect the attitude of the creator at the time, and are now considered offensive.

We use temporary cookies on this site to provide functionality.
By continuing to use this site without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies.