Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

The Principle of Legality: Protecting Rights in Australia

4/23/2015

1 Comment

 
Picture
By Siddarth Sethi

In April 2010, the Australian government released its Human Rights Framework, a formal response to the  recommendations  proposed  by the National Human Rights  Consultation chaired  by  Father  Frank  Brennan  AO.  The  Framework  adopted  many  of  the recommendations  put  forth  by  the  Brennan  Committee’s  Report,  including  increasing efforts to educate Australians about their rights, and about the nature of rights protection in  Australia  generally.  However,  the  Australian  government  rejected  the  Committee’s primary recommendation to adopt a statutory bill of rights, or Human Rights Act, modeled on  existing  state  and  territory  legislation  already  operating  in  the  Australian  Capital Territory  and  Victoria.  Due  to  the  lack  of  federal  legislation,  the  judicial  statutory interpretation  principles,  particularly  the  principle  of  legality,  remain  the  primary mechanisms of rights protection in Australia. [1]

Recent High Court decisions including that of Plaintiff S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (‘Plaintiff S10’) suggest that the power of these mechanisms to prevent the government  from  rescinding  fundamental  common  law  rights  has  waned.  [2][1]Additionally, the changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 proposed by the  Abbott  government have  highlighted  concerns  surrounding  the  balance  of  federal rights  protection  mechanisms  and  the  maintenance  of  satisfactory  checks  on  legislative power.  Given  the  current  political  climate,  whether  the  current  principle  of  legality provides adequate rights protection or whether something more, such as the statutory bill of  rights  suggested  by the Brennan Committee,  is needed  has  become  increasingly  more important.
The  judicial  principle  of  legality  refers to the  presumption that the  courts will  approach legislation  in  a  manner  consistent  with  fundamental,  or  common  law,  rights  unless parliament  explicitly  states  otherwise. [3] This  principle  has  a  long  history  in Australian 
public law, dating back to the seminal High Court case of Potter v Minahan. [4] Mr. Minahan, was born in Australia but left Australia with his Chinese father at the age of five. Upon his return twenty‐six  years  later, the  Court was  faced  with  determining  whether,  under the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (Cth), he was an immigrant. The Court  ruled that the right of an Australian‐born person to enter Australia was fundamental, and could only be revoked if the contrary were explicitly stated in a piece of legislation. Due to the absence of 
such statements in the relevant Act, Mr. Minahan was not considered an immigrant. Justice O’Connor  captures  the  essence  of  this  principle  in  Australian  public  law  in  his  opinion, stating that the Court does not recognize implicit restrictions on rights: 

‘It is in the last degree improbable that the legislature would overthrow fundamental principles, infringe rights, or depart from the general system of law, without expressing its intention with irresistible clearness; and to give any such effect to general words, simply because they have that meaning in their widest, or usual, or natural sense, would be to give them a meaning in which they were not really used.’ [5]

The principle of legality strives to protect implicit rights by giving the courts the power to scrutinize  legislation,  and  to  determine  whether  it  is  consistent  with  fundamental,  or common law, rights. Therefore, such protections depend greatly upon the discretion of the courts. Recent High Court decisions  suggest that  court  sentiments have  shifted, placing a greater emphasis on deriving the legislation’s purpose from the text. This has altered the judiciary’s  approach  to  the  question  of  whether  a  certain  right  is  to  be  abrogated  or protected by legislation. Where previously the courts identified the affected right first and then determined whether the legislation intended to rescind it, the courts now determine the legislation’s purpose first, and then determine whether the protection of the  relevant right falls within its scope. [6]

This  change in  approach is  significant for two main  reasons. First, it  restricts the  courts’ ability  to  scrutinize  legislation  and  ensure  its  consistency  with  common  law  rights.  The new  methodology  shifts  the  balance  of  rights  protection  towards  the  legislative  branch, weakening the judiciary’s power to hold the legislature accountable. Second, and somewhat related, the shift in approach means that the government may not need to explicitly state an intention to abrogate the relevant rights; instead, the abrogation may be inferred from extrinsic material, allowing for more exceptions to the principle of legality. 

Comparing the  defining  issues  in  Plaintiff S10 and  Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (‘Saeed’) emphasizes these concerns. [7] Both cases relate to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)  and  whether  the  Minister  for  Immigration  and  Citizenship  was  required  to afford  the  plaintiffs  natural  justice  or  procedural  fairness  when  exercising  his  powers under various sections of the Act.

In Saeed, the Court  ruled that the right to natural justice was a fundamental  right, and in order to exclude it an express statement demonstrating the legislature’s intention to do so was  required.  Due  to  the  lack  of  such  a  statement,  the  plaintiff  was  afforded  the  rights initially denied to him. [8]

Conversely,  in  Plaintiff S10 the  High  Court  ruled  that  the  Minister  was  not  required  to afford the  plaintiffs  natural  justice  or  procedural  fairness  when  determining  whether to grant them visas. This judgment was made despite the lack of express words to that effect in the relevant section of the Act. Instead, the intention of the legislation was derived from extrinsic material‐‐ such as the structure of the Act‐‐ a direct contrast to the court’s view in Saeed. [9]

Although Plaintiff S10 seemingly  signals a shift in the High Court’s approach to questions regarding  rights protection, we have yet to  see whether the High Court will  continue the approach taken in this case. Although this case may not signal a weakening of the principle of legality, it does pose serious concerns regarding the power of the principle. Whether this principle  will  continue to  provide  adequate  protection  for Australians,  or whether  more explicit legislation is needed, only time can tell.

[1] George Williams and Lisa Burton, Australia’s Exclusive Parliamentary Model of Rights Protection, 34 Statute Law Review 58, 61 (2009).
[2]  Will  Sharpe  and  Michael  Palfrey,  Australia:  Cracks  in  the  Principle  of  Legality  in Statutory Interpretation,  Sparkle Helmore Lawyers Blog (Mondaq July 9, 2014) online at http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/326154/trials+appeals+compensation/Cracks+in+the+principle+of+legality+in+statutory+interpretation (visited November 1, 2014).
[3] Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1, [43].
[4] Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277, 304.
[5] Id.
[6]  Will  Sharpe  and  Michael  Palfrey,  Australia:  Cracks  in  the  Principle  of  Legality  in Statutory Interpretation (cited in note 2).
[7] Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] HCA 23 (23 June 2010).
[8] Id at [59].
[9]  Plaintiff  S10‐2011  v  Minister  for  Immigration  and  Citizenship  [2012]  HCA  31  (7 September 2012), [119].

Photo Credit: Flickr User Michael McDonough

1 Comment
Caleb Kim
4/24/2015 04:09:43 pm

Great work Sid!

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​