Judicial review foundations in Melbourne
š Judicial Review Foundations in Melbourne (Australia)
What is Judicial Review?
In Australian administrative law, judicial review is the process by which courts supervise and review decisions or actions of government bodies and public authorities to ensure they comply with the law, including the Constitution.
Foundations of Judicial Review in Australia
Australia follows the common law tradition, inherited from England.
Judicial review in Australia has developed through both statutory frameworks (e.g., Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 - ADJR Act) and common law principles.
The High Court of Australia, based in Canberra but influential throughout Australia including Melbourne, has shaped the principles of judicial review.
Courts in Melbourne (Victorian Supreme Court and Federal Courts) also contribute significantly to the development of judicial review.
Grounds of Judicial Review in Australia
Australian courts generally review administrative decisions on these grounds:
Jurisdictional Error ā decision-maker acted beyond their legal powers.
Breach of Natural Justice (Procedural Fairness) ā failure to provide a fair hearing.
Improper Exercise of Power ā bad faith, irrelevant considerations.
Unreasonableness ā decisions no reasonable authority could make.
Error of Law ā misinterpretation of statutes or legal principles.
āļø Key Case Laws in Australian Judicial Review Foundations
1. Australian Communist Party v. Commonwealth (1951) (also known as the Communist Party Case)
Facts:
The Australian government passed legislation to ban the Communist Party, relying on statutory powers to declare organizations unlawful.
Issue:
Was the governmentās power to declare organizations unlawful subject to judicial review?
Held:
The High Court struck down the law as unconstitutional because the legislation conferred power to the executive without proper justification, and courts could review the legality of such acts.
Significance:
Established that Parliamentās laws and executive acts are subject to constitutional limits and judicial review.
Affirmed that courts protect constitutional rights from excessive executive or legislative power.
2. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v. Li (2013)
Facts:
An immigration officer made a decision refusing a visa application. The applicant challenged the decision on grounds of procedural fairness.
Issue:
Was the officerās decision affected by jurisdictional error due to failure to observe procedural fairness?
Held:
Yes. The High Court held the decision invalid as the officer failed to provide reasons or a chance to respond to adverse material.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the principle of procedural fairness in administrative decisions.
Emphasized that decision-makers must provide reasons and opportunity to be heard.
3. Plaintiff S157/2002 v. Commonwealth (2003)
Facts:
Challenged a privative clause designed to prevent judicial review of certain migration decisions.
Issue:
Can Parliament exclude judicial review by legislation?
Held:
No. The High Court held that privative clauses cannot exclude judicial review for jurisdictional error, as judicial review is essential to uphold the rule of law.
Significance:
Confirmed that judicial review protects individuals from unlawful administrative action.
Limits Parliament's ability to oust court oversight.
4. Craig v. South Australia (1995)
Facts:
Challenged a state law that purported to exclude judicial review of certain administrative decisions.
Issue:
Could state legislation validly restrict judicial review?
Held:
The High Court held that state laws cannot exclude review for jurisdictional error because judicial review is entrenched as part of the separation of powers and rule of law.
Significance:
Extended the principle that judicial review protects against jurisdictional error.
Reinforced the constitutional importance of judicial review.
5. Kirk v. Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (2010)
Facts:
The case involved the validity of decisions by a state tribunal.
Issue:
Could courts review decisions for jurisdictional error despite state laws limiting such review?
Held:
The High Court held that state tribunals must comply with jurisdictional limits, and courts can intervene if there is jurisdictional error.
Significance:
Clarified the constitutional guarantee of judicial review of state tribunal decisions.
Strengthened the courtsā supervisory role over administrative bodies.
Summary Table
| Case | Legal Principle | Impact on Judicial Review |
|---|---|---|
| Australian Communist Party v. Commonwealth | Constitutional limits on legislation | Parliament and executive subject to judicial review |
| Minister for Immigration v. Li | Procedural fairness | Fair hearing and reasons necessary in admin decisions |
| Plaintiff S157/2002 v. Commonwealth | Limits on privative clauses | Judicial review cannot be ousted by legislation |
| Craig v. South Australia | Review of state administrative acts | State laws cannot exclude jurisdictional error review |
| Kirk v. Industrial Relations Commission NSW | Judicial review of state tribunals | Courts can review for jurisdictional errors |
Conclusion
Judicial review in Melbourne and Australia is rooted in constitutional law and common law principles emphasizing the rule of law.
Australian courts ensure administrative bodies act within legal authority, fairly, and reasonably.
Landmark cases reflect the balance between legislative authority and judicial oversight.
Judicial review is a cornerstone for protecting individual rights and maintaining accountability of the executive.
RELATED Blog
0 comments