HAMLYN LECTURES - University Of Exeter
HAMLYNLECTURESJudicial ActivismBy The Hon. Justice Michael Kirby AC CMGJustice of the High Court of AustraliaTHOMSONSWEET & IN/IAXWELL
THE HAMLYN LECTURESFIFTY-FIFTH SERIESJUDICIAL ACTIVISMAUTHORITY, PRINCIPLE AND POLICYIN THE JUDICIAL METHOD
AUSTRALIALawbook Co.SydneyCANADA and USACarswellTorontoHONG KONGSweet & Maxwell AsiaNEW ZEALANDBrookersWellingtonSINGAPORE and MALAYSIASweet & Maxwell AsiaSingapore and Kuala Lumpur
JUDICIAL ACTIVISMAuthority, Principle and Policy in the JudicialMethodbyTHE HON JUSTICE MICHAEL KIRBYAC CMGJustice of the High Court of AustraliaPublished under the auspices ofTHE HAMLYN TRUSTLONDONSWEET & MAXWELL2004
Published in 2004 by Sweet & Maxwell Limited of100 Avenue Road, Swiss Cottage,London NW3 3PFTypeset by LBJ Typesetting Ltd of KingsclerePrinted in Wales by Creative Print and Design GroupNo natural forests were destroyed to make this product;only farmed timber was used and replantedA CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the BritishLibraryISBN 0421 879505 (HB)0421 878300 (PB)Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of theController of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. All rightsreserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced ortransmitted in any form, or by any means stored in anyretrieval system of any nature without prior written permission,except for permitted fair dealing under the Copyright, Designsand Patents Act 1988, or in accordance with the terms of alicence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in respect ofphotocopying and/or reprographic reproduction. Applicationfor permission for other use of copyright material includingpermission to reproduce extracts in other published works shallbe made to the publishers. Full acknowlegement of author,publisher and source must be given.Justice Michael Kirby2004
For Johan van Vloten
The above illustration is the work of Sturt Krygsman and wasfirst published in The Australian newspaper, October 15, 2003. Itis reproduced by permission of the artist and the original is nowin the possession of the author.
TABLE OF CONTENTSThe Hamlyn LecturesThe Hamlyn TrustPrefaceTable of CasesTable of Legislation1.2.3.4.ixxiiixvxixxxviiOld 34361Bibliography93Index105Vlll
THE HAMLYN LECTURES1949 Freedom under the Lawby the Rt Hon. Lord Denning1950 The Inheritance of the Common Lawby Richard O'Sullivan1951 The Rational Strength of English Lawby Professor F.H. Lawson1952 English Law and the Moral Lawby Professor A.L. Goodhart1953 The Queen's Peaceby Sir Carleton Kemp Allen1954 Executive Discretion and Judicial Controlby Professor C.J. Hamson1955 The Proof of Guiltby Professor Glanville Williams1956 Trial by Juryby the Rt Hon. Lord Devlin1957 Protection from Power under English Lawby the Rt Hon. Lord MacDermott1958 The Sanctity of Contracts in English Lawby Professor Sir David Hughes Parry1959 Judge and Jurist in the Reign of Victoriaby C.H.S. Fifoot1960 The Common Law in Indiaby M.C. SetalvadIX
The Hamlyn Lectures1961 British Justice: The Scottish Contributionby Professor Sir Thomas Smith1962 Lawyer and Litigant in Englandby the Rt Hon. Sir Robert Megarry1963 Crime and the Criminal Lawby the Baroness Wootton of Abinger1964 Law and Lawyers in the United Statesby Dean Erwin N. Griswold1965 New Law for a New World?by the Rt Hon. Lord Tanley1966 Other People's Lawby the Rt Hon. Lord Kilbrandon1967 The Contribution of English Law to South African Law:and the Rule of Law in South Africaby the Hon. O.D. Schreiner1968 Justice in the Welfare Stateby Professor H. Street1969 The British Tradition in Canadian Lawby the Hon. Bora Laskin1970 The English Judgeby Henry Cecil1971 Punishment, Prison and the Publicby Professor Sir Rupert Cross1972 Labour and the Lawby Professor Sir Otto Kahn-Freund1973 Maladministration and its Remediesby Sir Kenneth Wheare1974 English Law—the New Dimensionby the Rt Hon. Lord Scarman
The Hamlyn Lectures1975 The Land and the Development; or, The Turmoil and theTormentby Sir Desmond Heap1976 The National Insurance Commissionersby Sir Robert Micklethwait1977 The European Communities and the Rule of Lawby Lord Mackenzie Stuart1978 Liberty, Law and Justiceby Professor Sir Norman Anderson1979 Social History and Law Reformby Professor Lord McGregor of Durris1980 Constitutional Fundamentalsby Professor Sir William Wade1981 Intolerable Inquisition? Reflections on the Law of Taxby Hubert Monroe1982 The Quest for Security: Employees, Tenants, Wivesby Professor Tony Honore1983 Hamlyn Revisited: The British Legal System Todayby Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone1984 The Development of Consumer Law and Policy—BoldSpirits and Timorous Soulsby Sir Gordon Borrie1985 Law and Orderby Professor Ralf Dahrendorf1986 The Fabric of English Civil Justiceby Sir Jack Jacob1987 Pragmatism and Theory in English Lawby P.S. Atiyah1988 Justification and Excuse in the Criminal Lawby J.C. Smithxi
The Hamlyn Lectures1989 Protection of the Public—A New Challengeby the Rt Hon. Lord Justice Woolf1990 The United Kingdom and Human Rightsby Dr Claire Palley1991 Introducing a European Legal Orderby Gordon Slynn1992 Speech & Respectby Professor Richard Abel1993 The Administration of Justiceby Lord Mackay of Clashfern1994 Blackstone's Tower: The English Law Schoolby Professor William Twining1995 From the Test Tube to the Coffin: Choice and Regulationin Private Lifeby the Hon. Mrs Justice Hale1996 Turning Points of the Common lawby the Rt Hon. The Lord Cooke of Thorndon1997 Commercial Law in the Next Millenniumby Professor Roy Goode1998 Freedom Law and Justiceby the Rt Hon. Lord Justice Sedley1999 The State of Justiceby Michael Zander Q.C.2000 Does the United Kingdom still have a Constitution?by Anthony King2001 Human Rights, Serious Crime and Criminal Procedureby Andrew Ashworth Q.C.2002 Legal Conundrums in our Brave New Worldby Baroness Kennedy of the Shawsxn
THE HAMLYN TRUSTThe Hamlyn Trust owes its existence to the will of the late MissEmma Warburton Hamlyn of Torquay, who died in 1941 at theage of 80. She came of an old and well-known Devon family.Her father, William Bussell Hamlyn, practised in Torquay as asolicitor and J.P. for many years, and it seems likely that MissHamlyn founded the trust in his memory. Emma Hamlyn was awoman of strong character, intelligent and cultured, well-versedin literature, music and art, and a lover of her country. Shetravelled extensively in Europe and Egypt, and apparently tookconsiderable interest in the law and ethnology of the countriesand cultures that she visited. An account of Miss Hamlyn by DrChantal Stebbings of the University of Exeter may be found,under the title "The Hamlyn Legacy", in volume 42 of thepublished lectures.Miss Hamlyn bequeathed the residue of her estate on trust interms which it seems were her own. The wording was thoughtto be vague, and the will was taken to the Chancery Division ofthe High Court, which in November 1948 approved a Schemefor the administration of the trust. Paragraph 3 of the Scheme,which closely follows Miss Hamlyn's own wording, is asfollows:"The object of the charity is the furtherance by lectures or otherwiseamong the Common People of the United Kingdom of Great Britainand Northern Ireland of the knowledge of the Comparative Jurisprudence and Ethnology of the Chief European countries including theUnited Kingdom, and the circumstances of the growth of suchjurisprudence to the Intent that the Common People of the UnitedKingdom may realise the privileges which in law and custom theyenjoy in comparison with other European Peoples and realising andappreciating such privileges may recognise the responsibilities andobligations attaching to them."The Trustees are to include the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Exeter, representatives of the Universities of London,Leeds, Glasgow, Belfast and Wales and persons co-opted. Atpresent there are eight Trustees:xiii
The Hamlyn TrustProfessor N. Dawson, Queen's University, BelfastProfessor Kim Economides, representing the Vice Chancellor of the University of ExeterProfessor B.A.K. Rider, University of London (Chairman)Mr P.J. Seago, University of LeedsThe Rt Hon. The Lord Justice SedleyProfessor P.A. Thomas, Cardiff UniversityProfessor J.M. Thomson, The University of GlasgowProfessor D.E.C. WedderburnClerk; Mr Graham Ritchie, Institute of Advanced LegalStudiesFrom the outset it was decided that the objects of the Trustcould best be achieved by means of an annual course of publiclectures of outstanding interest and quality by eminent Lecturers, and by their subsequent publication and distribution to awider audience. The first of the Lectures were delivered by theRt Hon. Lord Justice Denning (as he then was) in 1949. Sincethen there has been an unbroken series of annual Lectures. Acomplete list of the Lectures may be found on pages ix to xii.The Trustees have also, from time to time, provided financialsupport for a variety of projects which, in various ways, havedisseminated knowledge or have promoted a wider publicunderstanding of the law.The 55th series of lectures was delivered by the Hon. JusticeMichael Kirby, at Exeter University and Cardiff Law School,during November 2003. The Board of Trustees would like torecord its appreciation to Justice Kirby and also the two University law schools, which generously hosted these lectures.March 2004BARRY A.K. RIDERChairman of the Trusteesxiv
PREFACEThe first Hamlyn lectures were given by Lord Denning in1949. He came to Australia about a decade afterwards, when Iwas at university. In brilliant addresses he reminded us of thecapacity and duty of the common law to develop and adapt tothe needs of a changing society. Even as students we knew ofhis foibles and occasional mistakes. Some of our lecturerscomplained bitterly about the changes he was making, orproposing, in the law from his influential judicial position.To most of the young members of the audience, who had notthrown off the idealistic sense that law's mission, concernedwith justice, is potentially a noble one, Denning was a breath offresh air. He signed his photograph which I thrust in front ofhim. I still have it in my chambers. In later years we corresponded. He demonstrated the truth of what Professor JuliusStone was teaching us in lectures on jurisprudence. Like it ornot, judges of the common law have choices. The higher they gothe more numerous and more difficult are the leeways forchoice. Choice arises in interpreting a written constitution; inconstruing legislation; and in expressing the principles of thecommon law and equity for new problems. Denning's was amarvellous message about the capacity and duty of the legalprofession to keep the law up to date wherever it could.Denning's instruction was a notable counterpoint to the lessonthat the great Chief Justice of Australia of those days, Sir OwenDixon, propounded. For Dixon, law would have lost its meaning if the solution to a case did not pre-exist. It would beunworthy of the name of law if it depended on the humour of ajudge. For Dixon, "excessive legalism" was a badge of honour."Strict and complete legalism" was the duty of the law and allof its practitioners. Dixon's recent biography by Philip Ayresshows that he thoroughly disapproved of Denning. Yet JuliusStone argued that the High Court of Australia did not alwayspractise the doctrine that Dixon preached. In Australia, in 1960,Denning seemed a voice for a new era.xv
PrefaceThe intervening decades, in Australia, the United Kingdomand elsewhere, have seen a continuation of this debate. AsEgypt is the gift of the Nile, the common law is the gift ofsucceeding generations of judges. They cannot avoid theircreative function, however much some might like to deny orminimise it. By the last two decades of the twentieth century, inAustralia and most other parts of the common law world,judges of great ability accepted Tom Denning's challenge. Perhaps as young lawyers they too had responded to his call.Judges began to adopt a more transparent methodology. Inaddition to their primary reliance on legal authority, they cameto draw in their decisions upon relevant considerations of legalprinciple and legal policy. And they would be honest in doingso, not least to themselves. Sometimes, stimulated by writtenlaw and sometimes by the common law, they would invokefundamental principles of human rights. The Old Testament ofDixonian "excessive legalism" began to seem like a breath froma bygone age.Just at that moment, following a period of exhilarating candour and enlightenment, a Counter-Reformation began. Itstarted about ten years ago and has gathered pace. Its mostdetermined voices have been heard in the United States andAustralia; but there were disciples everywhere. As is usually thecase in large intellectual movements, there is truth and wisdomin the Counter-Reformation, just as there was in the legalReformation that preceded it.Alas, in many places where the common law operates, likezealous converts to the religions of other times and places, theproponents of the competing views came to hurl insults at eachother and to denounce the others' methods as lacking in probity:heretical, dishonest and dangerous. Name calling of this kindhas attracted, and been stimulated by, political and intellectualbandwagons. They, in turn, have been urged on by the contemporary global media of infotainment, which tends to reducedifferences to personalities, party politics and allegations ofpersonal impropriety.In these lectures, I have set out to explore these divisions andto find some common ground. No judge of integrity can believethat he or she is a free agent, entitled to state the law accordingto a personal agenda. Yet it is equally wrong to disguise thepolicy choices that judges must make in performing theirfunctions or to pretend that the pursuit of justice is irrelevant orthat words alone, found in past "doctrine", solve all legalproblems.Because the judicial method is central to the performance byjudges of their duties, there is no more important debate for thexvi
Prefaceadministration of justice. Because the judiciary of the commonlaw has, inescapably, a greater obligation of choice than anyother, this is, and always will be, a significant subject for debateand analysis.Recently, in Sydney, I attended a lecture on the theology ofthe new Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. Itfollowed the controversies surrounding the withdrawal of thenomination as Bishop of Reading of Canon Jeffrey John. Listening to the debate of the theologians, I saw at once reflections ofthe disputes within the law. There were the strict Biblicalconstructionists, the verbalists, the traditionalists who resist anychange in settled ways. There were those who saw the everpresent danger of missing the main point of the entire exercise—whether it is global politics, religion or law. The lecturer helpedme see the subjects of these Hamlyn lectures through a lens witha wider focus.The clashes we have over the judicial method are part of amuch broader intellectual conflict characteristic of post modernism. Whilst we must search for common ground, the future ofintellectual discourse does not lie in surrendering the truth to anunthinking return to past ways, to past understandings of texts,holy or otherwise, or to forgetting the fundamental mission inwhich we are engaged. For judges and lawyers, that is a missionof justice according to law. It is not, mechanically, about lawalone.I wish to acknowledge the inspiration I received from myteachers: Tom Denning, Julius Stone and many others. From myfamily. From colleagues over the years, and from contemporarylawyers, including some of those who now adhere to thedoctrines of the Counter-Reformation. We may have arrived at atime, as the Archbishop of Canterbury said in that other context,for a period of quiet reflection, respectful listening and fewer"swear words", such as have marred the contemporary debatesabout "judicial activism". Certainly, it is well past time for animprovement in community education about the work thatjudges actually do, and how they do it. A pretence that it iswholly objective, simply verbal and completely policy-free hasno place in the relationship between a modern judiciary and thecommunity it serves.I also acknowledge the assistance I have had in preparingthese lectures. The originals were typed by my personal assistant, Janet Saleh. Many materials were presented to me by thelibrarian of the High Court of Australia, Ms Jacqueline Elliott,and by the Legal Officer to the Court, Mr Alex de Costa.Painstakingly, Mr de Costa helped check the manuscript andxvu
Prefacecorrect the final proofs. Useful comments and suggestions weregiven by my associates (clerks) for 2003: Mr Yane Svetiev, MsUlly Merkel and Mr Brent Dawkins.The text of the lectures was written to provide a foundationfor their oral presentation. The reference materials are providedto stimulate further debate and perhaps a measure of informedagreement. I took to heart Tom Denning's injunction at the startof his Lectures in 1949. Like Denning, I invited questions anddialogue with my audiences about my views. Some of the pointsmade by my listeners find reflection in the final written text.This, above all, is a subject upon which judges should speak—but also listen.To the memory of Miss Emma Hamlyn of Torquay, whosebequest made possible the lectures that bear her family name,previous lecturers, the worldwide company of the practitionersof the common law and I will always be grateful.Michael KirbyHigh Court of AustraliaCanberraDecember 1, 2003.xvm
TABLE OF CASESAdvocate General for Scotland v MacDonald; Pearce v MayfieldSecondary School Governing Body; sub nom. Secretary ofState for Defence v MacDonald; MacDonald v Ministry ofDefence; MacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland[2003] UKHL 34; 2003 S.L.T. 1158; [2003] I.C.R. 937, HL . . . 33, 35Arthur JS Hall & Co v Simons; sub nom. Harris v ScholfieldRoberts & Hall; Barratt v Ansell (t/a Woolf Seddon);Barratt v Woolf Seddon; Cockbone v Atkinson Dacre &Slack; Harris v Scholfield Roberts & Hill [2002] 1 A.C. 615;[2000] 3 W.L.R. 543; [2000] A.C. 54324Atkins v Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)75Attorney-General v Marquet [2003] 78 A.L.J.R. 105; 202 A.L.R.23335Austin v Commonwealth, The (2003) 77 A.L.J.R. 491; 195 A.LR.52137, 51Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats PryLtd (2002) 208 C.L.R. 19951, 80Australian Capital Television (Pty) Ltd v Australia (1992) 177C.L.R. 10651Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth, The (1951) 83C.L.R. 137, 51, 76, 82Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth, The(1980) 146 C.L.R. 49355Bandhua Mukti v Union of India (1987) 71 A.LR. S.C. 802Barns v Barns (2003) 77 A.L.J.R. 734; 196 A.L.R. 65Bazley v Curry (1999) 174 D.L.R. (4th) 45; [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534Black Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke WaldhofAschaffenburg AG [1975] A.C. 591; [1975] 2 W.L.R. 513Boland v Yates Property Corporation (1999) 167 C.L.R. 543Bowers v Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, (1986)Bowman v Secular Society Ltd; sub nom. Secular Society Ltd vBowman; Bowman, Re [1917] A.C. 406Brind, Ex p. See R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. BrindBrodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 C.L.R. 512xix392280562475238
Table of CasesBroome v Cassell & Co Ltd (No.l) [1972] A.C. 1027; [1972] 2W.L.R. 64556Bropho v Western Australia (1990) 171 C.L.R. 132, 34Brown v Stott; sub nom. Stott (Procurator Fiscal) v Brown [2003]1 A.C. 681; [2001] 2 W.L.R. 817, PC (Sc)80Bryan v Maloney, 182 C.L.R. 609, HC (Aus)85Building Construction Employees and Builders' LabourersFederation of NSW v Minister for Industrial Relations(1986) 7 N.S.W.L.R. 37245, 84Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 C.L.R. 5424Bush v Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000)27, 47, 58C.E.S. v Superclinics (Aust) Pty Ltd (1995) 38 N.S.W.L.R. 4725Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty v Dredge Willemstad, The (1976) 136C.L.R. 52984Caparo Industries Pic v Dickman [1990] 2 A.C. 605; [1990] 2W.L.R. 35885Cattanach v Melchior [2003] Lloyd's Rep. Med. 447, (2003) 77A.L.J.R. 1312; 199 A.L.R. 13125, 57Cowcher v Cowcher [1972] 1 W.L.R. 425; [1972] 1 All E.R. 943;116 S.J. 14216Crawford El v Britton 523 U.S. 574 (1998)26Daniels Corporation v Australian Competition and ConsumerCommission (2002) 77 A.L.J.R. 4034Dennis v United States 341 v U.S. 494; 192 A.LR. 561 (1951). 46, 76Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] A.C. 534,affirming [1992] Q.B. 770; [1992] 3 W.L.R. 2874Dietrich v R (1992) 177 C.L.R. 29249, 73Dr Bonham's Case, (1610) 8 Co. Rep. 107a16, 45Donoghue v Stevenson; sub nom. McAlister v Stevenson [1932]A.C. 562; 1932 S.C. (H.L.) 314, 19, 67Dow Jones and Co Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 C.LR. 57557, 70Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How) 393 (1857)46, 67Dugan v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1978) 142 C.L.R. 5838Dunlap v Dunlap 71 American Law Reports 1055 (1931)24Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales (2001) 205 C.L.R.39916, 45, 65Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban DC [1972] 1 Q.B. 373; [1972] 2W.L.R. 299129Eastern Associated Coal Corp v United Mine Workers ofAmerica 531 U.S. 57 (2000)33, 56Eastman V DPP (ACT) (2003) 198 A.L.R. 1 77 A.L.J.R. 112232Egerton v Brownlow (1853) 4 H.L. Cas. 124xx
Table of CasesEsso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 C.L.R. 49Evanturel v Evanturel (1874-75) L.R. 6 P.C. 1Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd[1982] Ch. 119; [1981] 3 All E.R. 241342231Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (t/a GH Dovener &Son); Babcock International Ltd v National Grid Co Pic;Fox v Spousal (Midlands) Ltd; Matthews v AssociatedPortland Cement Manufacturers (1978) Ltd; Dyson v LeedsCity Council (No.2); Pendleton v Stone & Webster Engineering Ltd; Matthews v British Uralite Pic [2002] UKHL22; [2003] 1 A.C. 32; [2002] 3 W.L.R. 8983Fender v St John Mildmay; sub nom. Fender v Mildmay [1938]A.C. 117Fey v Austria (A/255-A) (1993) 16 E.H.R.R. 387; [1993] I.I.H.R.L.7 (February 25, 1996)72Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [2001] 1 A.C. 27;[1999] 3 W.L.R. 111334, 35Fletcher v Lord Sondes (1826) 3 Bing. 50121Foster v Driscoll; Lindsay v Attfield; Lindsay v Driscoll [1929] 1K.B. 47022Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd [1981] A.C. 251; [1980] 3W.L.R. 20931Fraser v State Services Commission [1984] 1 N.Z.L.R. 11616, 45Garcia v Australia Bank Limited (1998) 194 C.L.R. 39567Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza; sub nom. Ghaidan v Mendoza;Godin-Mendoza v Ghaidan; Mendoza v Ghaidan [2002]EWCA Civ 1533; [2003] Ch. 380; [2003] 2 W.L.R. 478; [2002]4 All E.R. 116275, 77Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 C.L.R. 54324Gideon v Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963)49Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1986] A.C. 112;[1985] 3 W.L.R. 83082Gould v Brown (1998) 193 C.L.R. 34636Grain Pool of Western Australia v Commonwealth, The (2000)202 C.L.R. 47940Gregory v United Kingdom (22299/93) (1998) 25 E.H.R.R. 577;The Times, February 27, 1997, ECHR; (1995) 19 E.H.R.R.CD8272Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] UKHL 40;[2002] 1 W.L.R. 3024; [2002] 4 All E.R. 73231Gulf Oil Corporation v Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1946)80Gupta v President of India (1982) 69 A.I.R. S.C. 14938Gustafson v Alloyed 513 U.S. 561 (1993)33xxi
Table of CasesHa v New South Wales (1997) 189 C.L.R. 46556Jones v Wrotham Park Settled Estates; sub nom. Jones vWentworth Securities [1980] A.C. 74; [1979] 2 W.L.R. 132Jumbunna Coal Mine v Victorian Coalminers' Association (1908)6 C.L.R. 3093173Kable v DPP (NSW) (1997) 189 C.L.R. 5137, 51Kartinyeri v Commonwealth, The (1998) 195 C.L.R. 33759Karttunen v Finland [1992] I.I.H.R.L. 53 (October 23, 1992)72Kingston v Keprose Pty Ltd (1987) 11 N.S.W.L.R. 40432Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No.2) Ex p.Attourney-General (Qld) (1985) 159 C.L.R. 4619Korematsu v United States 323 U.S. 214 (1944)46Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corp (1997) 189 C.L.R. 520 . . . 37, 55Lawrence v Texas, 71 U.S.L.W. 4574 (2003)39, 75Libman v Attorney General of Quebec (1997) 151 D.L.R. (4th)38555Lipohar v R (1999) 200 C.L.R. 48557Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22; [2002] 1 A.C. 215;[2001] 2 W.L.R. 131180Liversidge v Anderson [1942] A.C. 20688Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1879-80) L.R. 5 App. Cas. 25 . . . . 25Lochner v New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)46Mabo v Queensland (No.2) (1992) 175 C.L.R. 1 . . .9, 20, 49, 54, 67, 70,73,82Mackenzie v R. (1997) 190 C.L.R. 34819McFarlane v Tayside Health Board; sub nom. Macfarlane vTayside Health Board [2000] 2 A.C. 59; [1999] 3 W.L.R. 1 3 0 1 . . . 25Mclnnis v R (1979) 143 C.L.R. 57549McKinney v R. (1991) 171 C.L.R 46856, 70McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 A.C. 410; [1982] 2 W.L.R. 98284Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)45Mehta v Union of India (1987) 74 A.I.R. S.C. 108639Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth, The (1947) 74 C.L.R.3135Mendoza v Ghaidan. See Ghaidan v Godin-MendozaMinister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183C.L.R. 2739, 60, 74Mirehouse v Rennell (1833) 1 Cl. & F. 5275Miriams, Re [1891] 1 Q.B. 59423xxii
Table of CasesNelson v Nelson (1995) 185 C.L.R. 53822, 32, 35New Jersey v Reading Co, 451 U.S. 918 (1980)22New South Wales v Lepore (2003) 77 A.L.J.R. 558; 195 A.L.R. 412 . . . 80New Zealand Drivers' Association v New Zealand Road Carriers [1982] 1 N.Z.L.R. 37416Nguyen v Nguyen (1990) 169 C.L.R. 24567Nolan v Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs(1988) 165 CLR 178Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition Co Ltd;sub nom. Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition Co vNordenfelt [1894] A.C. 53523Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris (1997) 188 C.L.R. 31356Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 C.L.R. 30783Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165C.L.R. 19783Parton v Milk Board (1949) 80 C.L.R. 229Patterson, Re Ex p Taylor (2001) 207 C.L.R. 391Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 C.L.R. 180Plessy v Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 C.L.R. 277Powell v Alabama 287 U.S. 45 (1982)Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998)194 C.L.R. 355Public Service Board v Osmond (1986) 159 C.L.R. 656374085463449Queensland v Commonwealth, The (1977) 139 C.L.R. 585783218R. v Farrell, Dingle & Hoodward (1831) 1 Legge. 58R. v HM Treasury Ex p. Smedley; sub nom. R. v EconomicSecretary to the Treasury Ex p. Smedley [1985] Q.B. 657;[1985] 2 W.L.R. 57624R. v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex p. National Federationof Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd; sub nom.Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation ofSelf Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] A.C. 617;[1981] 2 W.L.R. 72224R. v Ireland (1970) 126 C.L.R. 32124R. v Kirby Ex p. Boilermakers' Society of Australia (1956) 94C.L.R. 25437, 51, 54R. v L (1991) 1974 C.L.R. 37920, 75R. v Marshall [1999] 3 S.C.R. 45652R. v R (Rape: Marital Exemption); sub nom. R. v R (A Husband)[1992] 1 A.C. 599; [1991] 3 W.L.R. 76782R. v RDS [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; (1997) 151 D.L.R. 4th 19373R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Brind[1991] 1 A.C. 696; [1991] 2 W.L.R. 58874XX1U
Table of CasesR. (on the application of Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v SpecialCommissioner of Income Tax; sub nom. R. v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex p. Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd; R. vSpecial Commissioners of Income Tax Ex p. Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd [2002] UKHL 21; [2003] 1 A.C. 563; [2002] 2W.L.R. 129934R. (on the application of Quintavalle) v Secretary of State forHealth [2003] UKHL 13; [2003] 2 A.C. 687; [2003] 2 W.L.R.69232, 33Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust [2003] UKHL52; [2003] 3 W.L.R. 1091; [2003] 4 All E.R. 98725Regina v Secretary of State for Health Ex p. Quintavalle (onbehalf of Pro-Life Alliance). See R. (on the application ofQuintavalle) v Secretary of State for HealthRex v Waddington (1800) 1 East. 14321Richardson v Mellish (1874) 2 Bing 22922, 24Ridgeway v R. (1995) 184 C.L.R. 1924Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 C.L.R. 151Robinson v Tait [2002] 2 N.Z.L.R. 3019Rootes v Shelton (1967) 116 C.L.R. 383, reversing [1966] 2N.S.W.R. 78413Ross v McCarthy [1970] N.Z.L.R. 44970Searle v Wallbank [1947] A.C. 341; [1947] 1 All E.R. 128Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs(2003) 78 A.L.J.R. 203; 203 A.L.R. 14340Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital[1985] A.C. 871; [1985] 2 W.L.R. 48084Silveira v Lockyer L8 F.3d 567 (2003)58South Australia v Commonwealth, The (1942) 65 C.L.R. 37355South Pacific Manufacturing Co Ltd v NZ Security Consultants[1992] 2 N.Z.L.R. 28285Southern Pacific Co v Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (1917)68Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd[1973] Q.B. 27; [1972] 3 W.L.R. 502, CA20State Government Insurance Commission v Trigwell (1979) 142C.L.R. 61757, 88, 70Stevens v Keogh (1946) 72 C.L.R. 123Stringer v Government of the Philippine Islands 277 U.S.189(1928)54Sue v Hill (1999) 199 C.L.R. 46240, 47Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board [1984] 1 N.Z.L.R. 394Thai Trading Co v Taylor [1998] Q.B. 781; [1998] 2 W.L.R. 893;[1998] 3 All E.R. 65, CATheophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994) 182 C.L.R.104xxiv162351
Table of CasesThorsten Nordenfeldt v Maxim Nordenfedt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd. See Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns &Ammunition Co LtdTinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 A.C. 340; [1993] 3 W.L.R. 126; [1993]3 All E.R. 65Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pry Ltd(1988) 165 C.L.R. 107United States v Marshall, 908 F 2d 1312 (1990)Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2001] EWCACiv 1249; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 218; [2002] 3 All E.R. 78, CAVionovich v Women's Medical Professional Corp., 523 U.S. 1036(1998)568354461W (A Minor) (Adoption: Homosexual Adopter), Re [1998] Fam.58; [1997] 3 W.L.R. 768.:35Walsh and Johnson, Ex p.; Yates, Re (1925) 37 C.L.R. 3634Wakim, Re; Ex p. McNally (1999) 198 C.L.R. 51136, 40Western Australia v Commonwealth, The (1976) 134 C.L.R. 20178Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 C.L.R. 150, 79Wilkinson v Osborne (1915) 21 C.L.R. 8923Willis & Co v Baddeley [
1949 Freedom under the Law by the Rt Hon. Lord Denning 1950 The Inheritance of the Common Law by Richard O'Sullivan 1951 The Rational Strength of English Law by Professor F.H. Lawson 1952 English Law and the Moral Law by Professor A.L. Goodhart 1953 The Queen's Peace by Sir Carleton
'Pegasus', Dept. of Classics and Ancient History, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4RJ E-mail: pegasus@exeter.ac.uk . Pegasus - 2 - Issue 52 (2009) s in . The major event this last year was the announcement of the outcome of the Research Assessment Exercise 2008 in .
Second Edition —1981 Published in 1981 by Stevens & Sons Limited of 11 New Fetter Lane, London Printed in Great Britain by Thomson Litho Limited East Kilbride, Scotland British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Wootton, Barbara Crime and the criminal law —. 2nd ed. — (The Hamlyn lectures) 1. Crime and criminal —s England .
8 Design thinking as a process for people-centered innovation in the nancial sector Rama Gheeraw, o The Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design, Royal College of Art Jeremy Myerson, The Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design, Royal College of Art 16 How DBS embraced data-informed design to deliver a differentiated customer experience
Mathematics 2 Mathematics Department Phillips Exeter Academy Exeter, NH August 2019. To the Student Contents: Members of the PEA Mathematics Department have written the material in this book. As you work through it, you will discover that algebra, geometry, and trigonometry have been integr
survive in the Exeter Book, a manuscript of Anglo-Saxon poems produced by a single scribe around a.d. 950. In addition to these and other secular poems, the Exeter Book contains religious verse, nearly 100 riddles, and a heroic narrative. It is the largest collection of Old English poetry in existence. Neglected Treasure Originally, the Exeter
Club, Exeter Soccer Club, or Exeter Volleyball Club. UPPER SCHOOL students may also partici-pate in musical or choral groups. DESIGNING YOUR OWN CURRICULUM As an UPPER SCHOOL student, you have the free-dom to design your own academic curriculum. You may enroll in any three of the more than
“A Gentleman in Moscow” Itinerary at a Glance: Day 1 Arrive in Moscow Day 2 Backstage Tour of the Bolshoi Day 3 Kremlin Tour Day 4 Depart Moscow . Why Exeter International? Our Knowledge & Experience . At Exeter International we have been creating mem
2. Advantages The easiest thing in Python is to write “Hello World” program. Most programming languages require writing a lot of specific methods, or functions, class or program declarations, etc.
