Role of the separation of powers
⚖️ The Role of the Separation of Powers
What is the Separation of Powers?
The separation of powers is a fundamental constitutional doctrine that divides the functions of government into three distinct branches:
Legislative Branch — makes the laws
Executive Branch — enforces and administers the laws
Judicial Branch — interprets and applies the laws
This division aims to prevent concentration of power and safeguard liberty by providing checks and balances between branches.
Why is Separation of Powers Important?
Prevents abuse of power by ensuring no single branch controls all powers.
Maintains rule of law by ensuring laws are made, executed, and interpreted by separate bodies.
Promotes accountability by enabling each branch to oversee the others.
Ensures judicial independence, essential for fair trials and legal review.
Protects individual rights from arbitrary government actions.
Case Law Illustrations of Separation of Powers in Practice
1. Boilermakers’ Case (R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia) (1956) 94 CLR 254
Facts:
The High Court considered whether a single tribunal could exercise both judicial power (deciding legal disputes) and non-judicial power (arbitration of industrial disputes).
Issue:
Can one body exercise both judicial and executive powers?
Decision:
The High Court held that judicial power can only be exercised by courts established under Chapter III of the Constitution, and these courts cannot be vested with non-judicial powers.
Significance:
This is a key constitutional affirmation of separation of powers in Australia, restricting the mixing of judicial and executive functions in one body.
2. Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1
Facts:
The Commonwealth government passed legislation dissolving the Communist Party and banning its members.
Issue:
Did the legislation unlawfully interfere with judicial power by ousting courts’ ability to review?
Decision:
The High Court struck down the legislation as unconstitutional, emphasizing that parliament cannot make laws that remove judicial review or interfere with judicial functions.
Significance:
Reinforced the idea that judicial power is independent, and Parliament cannot legislate to undermine it, preserving the separation of powers.
3. Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51
Facts:
NSW enacted legislation allowing for the preventive detention of a person suspected of serious criminal conduct.
Issue:
Whether the NSW legislation compromised the institutional integrity of the state Supreme Court.
Decision:
The High Court held that state courts cannot be given powers that are incompatible with their role as courts under the Constitution.
Significance:
Shows that separation of powers doctrine applies to states, and state legislation must not undermine judicial independence.
4. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts:
The Commonwealth Parliament enacted legislation limiting judicial review of migration decisions.
Issue:
Whether Parliament can restrict access to judicial review of executive decisions.
Decision:
The High Court held that there are constitutional limits to Parliament’s power to restrict judicial review, upholding the principle that courts must remain able to supervise executive actions.
Significance:
Reaffirms separation of powers by ensuring the judiciary can oversee the executive, particularly protecting access to justice.
5. R v MacKay; Ex parte NSW Builders Labourers Federation (1984) 155 CLR 605
Facts:
The question was whether a state body could exercise judicial power.
Issue:
Does the Constitution allow non-judicial bodies to exercise judicial power?
Decision:
The High Court ruled that only courts established under the Constitution can exercise judicial power, and non-judicial bodies cannot be invested with such power.
Significance:
Further clarifies the strict division between judicial and other powers, reinforcing the separation doctrine.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Principle | Impact on Separation of Powers |
|---|---|---|
| Boilermakers’ Case | Judicial and executive powers must be separated | Prevents mixing of powers in one tribunal/body |
| Australian Communist Party | Parliament cannot oust judicial review | Protects judicial independence |
| Kable Case | States must respect judicial integrity | Ensures separation applies at state level |
| Plaintiff S157 | Limits on restricting judicial review | Maintains courts’ oversight of executive |
| R v MacKay | Only courts may exercise judicial power | Reinforces exclusive judicial function |
Conclusion
The separation of powers:
Ensures that legislature makes laws, executive enforces them, and judiciary interprets them independently.
Protects judicial independence essential for fairness.
Limits arbitrary power by keeping checks and balances.
Is reinforced by Australian constitutional jurisprudence, especially through cases like Boilermakers’ case, Kable, and Plaintiff S157.
These cases collectively show how the High Court maintains the constitutional doctrine by preventing powers from being concentrated or improperly exercised by a single branch of government.
RELATED Blog
0 comments