Federal Jurisdictional power particular State Supreme – Courts. Extension of Incompatibility Doctrine in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs case Outcomes from Kable Case Chapter II restricts the functions that Parliaments can confer upon State Courts that are vested with Federal Jurisdiction J Commented on the case in (2004) McHugh Fardon v Attorney-General Qld 223 CLR 575 Another is the circumstance with in Kable: legislation that purports to confer jurisdiction on State courts but compromises the institutional integrity of State courts and affects their capacity to exercise federal jurisdiction invested under Ch III impartially and competently. Subject to that proviso, when the Federal Parliament invests State courts with federal jurisdiction, it must take them as it finds them If the Parliament: - Judicial Appointments that deprive a court of Deprives Judicial Character judicial character, this precludes federal jurisdiction [2006] Per Forge v Australian Securities and Investments Comission HCA 44 If Parliament provides a Court with functions that Mixes Judicial Character – are mixed with those of the executive, it would be incompatible with federal jurisdictional functions. If functions are conferred on a federal Degrades Judicial Appearance – court that if carried out would or the public perception ‘degrade’ ‘undermine’ of independent and impartial judicial independence this may affect the – principle. 2002 [2003] WCA 249 Per Re Criminal proceeds Confiscation Act (1998) 193 CLR 173 Per Nicholas v R Future Cases & Kable Barker v R (2004) 223 CLR 513 case Facts: S13A 1989 (NSW) governed the conditions upon which Sentencing Act prisoners who had been given sentences could apply for parole. ‘life’ Under ss 13A(2), such prisoners to SC for the determination of a could apply minimum sentence. After that minimum sentence had been served, they would be able to apply for release on parole. Certain life prisoners (including Baker) were prevented from seek minimum term for his life sentence except under circumstances. “special” Decision: HCA rejected the challenge as Barker was not the sole target of the legislation. Additionally, the exercise of judicial had not in any way been reduced by the provision.
Federal Jurisdictional power – particular State Supreme Courts. Extension of Incompatibility Doctrine in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs case Outcomes from Kable Case Chapter II restricts the functions that Parliaments can confer upon State Courts that are vested with Federal Jurisdiction McHugh J Commented on the case in Fardon v Attorney-General Qld (2004) 223 CLR 575 Another is the circumstance with in Kable: legislation that purports to confer jurisdiction on State courts but compromises the institutional integrity of State courts and affects their capacity to exercise federal jurisdiction invested under Ch III impartially and competently. Subject to that proviso, when the Federal Parliament invests State courts with federal jurisdiction, it must take them as it finds them If the Parliament: Deprives Judicial Character - Judicial Appointments that deprive a court of judicial character, this precludes federal jurisdiction Per Forge v Australian Securities and Investments Comission [2006] HCA 44 Mixes Judicial Character – If Parliament provides a Court with functions that are mixed with those of the executive, it would be incompatible with federal jurisdictional functions. Degrades Judicial Appearance – If functions are conferred on a federal court that if carried out would ‘degrade’ or ‘undermine’ the public perception of independent and impartial judicial independence – this may affect the principle. Per Re Criminal proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 [2003] WCA 249 Per Nicholas v R (1998) 193 CLR 173 Future Cases & Kable Barker v R (2004) 223 CLR 513 case Facts: S13A Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW) governed the conditions upon which prisoners who had been given ‘life’ sentences could apply for parole. Under ss 13A(2), such prisoners could apply to SC for the determination of a minimum sentence. After that minimum sentence had been served, they would be able to apply for release on parole. Certain life prisoners (including Baker) were prevented from seek minimum term for his life sentence except under “special” circumstances. Decision: HCA rejected the challenge as Barker was not the sole target of the legislation. Additionally, the exercise of judicial had not in any way been reduced by the provision.
Constitutional_Notes.docx