Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

Last updated

Kable v DPP (NSW)
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameKable v The Director of Public Prosecutions for New South Wales
Decided12 September 1996
Citation(s) [1996] HCA 24, (1996) 189  CLR  51
Transcript(s)
Case history
Prior action(s)Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (1995) 36 NSWLR 374
Subsequent action(s)NSW v Kable
[2013] HCA 26, (2013) 252  CLR  118
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow   JJ
Case opinions
(4:2) The Community Protection Act 1994 was an invalid law because it vested the Supreme Court of New South Wales with powers incompatible with its role in the federal judicial structure (per Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ; Dawson J & Brennan CJ dissenting)

Kable v DPP, [1] is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It is a significant case in Australian constitutional law.

Contents

The case is notable for having established the 'Kable Doctrine', a precept in Australian law with relevance to numerous important legal issues; including the separation of powers, parliamentary sovereignty, Australian federalism, and the judicial role. It is particularly significant as one of the few restraints upon the otherwise plenary legislative powers of state parliaments in Australia, aside from those imposed by the Commonwealth through section 109. [lower-alpha 1]

The Kable decision is controversial among legal scholars. [2] [3]

Facts

Gregory Kable had been sentenced to five years imprisonment for the manslaughter of his wife. [4] In gaol, Kable had sent threatening letters to the people who denied him access to his children. He was charged and sentenced to an additional 16 months for writing the letters in 1990. Four years later, having been granted no parole, he was released from gaol.

His release coincided with a state election campaign which featured "law and order" as a major issue. In the course of that campaign, the Parliament of New South Wales passed the Community Protection Act 1994. [5] It authorised the Supreme Court of New South Wales to make an order requiring that a single individual be detained in prison if the Court was satisfied that that person posed a significant danger to the public.

The Act was later amended to authorise the Court to detain Kable specifically. [lower-alpha 2] The legislation was closely modeled on a law passed in Victoria, the Community Protection Act 1990, which was enacted to authorise 'preventive detention' for Garry David. [6]

In early 1995, Justice Levine of the Supreme Court made an order under the Community Protection Act requiring that Kable be detained for a period of six months. Kable appealed that decision but lost at the NSW Court of Appeal. [7]

Kable then appealed to the High Court. His counsel, Sir Maurice Byers, put forward an argument that the legislation was constitutionally invalid. [8]

Judgment

The High Court held that the law was unconstitutional. Its reasoning was that the act had conferred a power upon the NSW Supreme Court which was incompatible with section 71 of the constitution. Section 71 vests Australia's state supreme courts with federal judicial power. [9]

The act was described by multiple justices in the majority as requiring the Supreme Court to (perform) non-judicial functions of such a nature that public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary as an institution ... is diminished'. [10] This was an attempt to ground Kable in the precedent of a test for invalidity set by Grollo v Palmer. [lower-alpha 3] The preventative detention of Kable under the act for reasons of anticipated criminality was enough for Toohey J to declare that the Grollo test had been met.

Aftermath

After the decision, Kable sought an award of damages for abuse of process, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. His application was dismissed by the Supreme Court of NSW, [11] but he was successful in an appeal to the NSW Court of Appeal on his claim of false imprisonment with damages to be assessed. [12] The State of NSW then appealed to the High Court. [13]

The High Court unanimously upheld the appeal and dismissed Mr Kable's claims, holding that a detention order made by a judge of the Supreme Court of NSW was valid until it was set aside and provided lawful authority for Mr Kable's detention. [14] [15]

Significance

The Kable decision is controversial among legal scholars. The decision has received qualified praise from TRS Allan who said that; 'despite doubtful reasoning, (it) vindicated indirectly the fundamental character of the separation of powers as an aspect of the rule of law'. [2] Prominent critics of the decision include Jeffrey Goldsworthy and George Winterton. Winterton described the reasoning in Kable as 'barely even plausible'; [3] while Goldsworthy described the decision and its line of authority as lacking 'methodological rigour'; accusing the court of 'judicial statesmanship'. [2]

The principles and reasoning supporting the Kable doctrine are understood to have developed since the original decision. One such important case in this line of authority is Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission. [2]

Kable has proven to be an important doctrine for the court to consider in many subsequent decisions; including an appeal by Julian Knight for his release in Knight v Victoria.

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Other restraints on state parliament legislative powers also exist in the Commonwealth constitution. E.g. those implied by s50, s92, etc.
  2. ↑ In effect, Kable was subject to a bill of attainder.
  3. ↑ Grollo v Palmer is an Australian separation of powers case regarding the persona designata doctrine.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Australia</span> Highest court in Australia

The High Court of Australia is Australia's apex court. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified in the Constitution of Australia and supplementary legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australia Act 1986</span> Legislation by the UK and Australian Parliaments

The Australia Act 1986 is the short title of each of a pair of separate but related pieces of legislation: one an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, the other an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In Australia they are referred to, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments, because of uncertainty as to whether the Commonwealth Parliament alone had the ultimate authority to do so. They were enacted using legislative powers conferred by enabling Acts passed by the parliaments of every Australian state. The Acts came into effect simultaneously, on 3 March 1986.

The system of tort law in Australia is broadly similar to that in other common law countries. However, some divergences in approach have occurred as its independent legal system has developed.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Legal cases regarding Australian constitutional law are often handled by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anthony Mason (judge)</span> Australian judge

Sir Anthony Frank MasonHonFAIB DistFRSN is an Australian judge who served as the ninth Chief Justice of Australia, in office from 1987 to 1995. He was first appointed to the High Court in 1972, having previously served on the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

<i>Polyukhovich v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth [1991] HCA 32; (1991) 172 CLR 501, commonly referred to as the War Crimes Act Case, was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the external affairs power in section 51(xxix) of the Constitution and the judicial power of the Commonwealth.

The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.

The separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion.

Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.

In Australian constitutional law, chapter III courts are courts of law which are a part of the Australian federal judiciary and thus are able to discharge Commonwealth judicial power. They are so named because the prescribed features of these courts are contained in chapter III of the Australian Constitution.

<i>Cole v Whitfield</i> Australian constitutional law case

Cole v Whitfield, is a decision of the High Court of Australia. At issue was the interpretation of section 92 of the Australian Constitution, a provision which relevantly states:

... trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.

<i>Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld)</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575 was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the separation of powers in Australia.

The persona designata doctrine is a doctrine in law, particularly in Canadian and Australian constitutional law which states that, although it is generally impermissible for a federal judge to exercise non-judicial power, it is permissible for a judge to do so if the power has been conferred on the judge personally, as opposed to powers having been conferred on the court. The doctrine in the more general sense has been recognised throughout the common law countries. Persona designata, according to Black's Law Dictionary, means "A person considered as an individual rather than as a member of a class"; thus it may be a person specifically named or identified in a lawsuit, as opposed to the one belonging to an identified category or group. While it has its origin in Montesquieu's doctrine of the separation of powers, it can be traced back as far as Aristotle's Politics.

<i>DEmden v Pedder</i>

D'Emden v Pedder was a significant Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 26 April 1904. It directly concerned the question of whether salary receipts of federal government employees were subject to state stamp duty, but it touched on the broader issue within Australian constitutional law of the degree to which the two levels of Australian government were subject to each other's laws.

A referendum concerning the abolition of the New South Wales Legislative Council was put to New South Wales voters on 29 April 1961. The abolition was specifically rejected by voters. The text of the question was:

Do you approve of the Bill entitled "A Bill for an Act to Abolish the Legislative Council to provide that another Legislative Council shall not be created, constituted or established nor shall any Chamber, Assembly or House, other than the Legislative Assembly, designed to form part of the Legislative Parliament of New South Wales, be created, constituted or established until a bill for the purpose has been approved by the electors in a referendum to amend the Constitution Act, 1902 and certain other Acts; and for purposes connected therewith."

<i>South Australia v Totani</i>

South Australia v Totani is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court concerning the extent to which the legislative power of an Australian State is limited by the separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution. The High Court held that the legislative power of a State does not extend to enacting a law which deprives a court of the State of one of its defining characteristics as a court or impairs one or more of those characteristics.

<i>Pirrie v McFarlane</i> Australian court case

Pirrie v McFarlane is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia on Intergovernmental immunity between tiers of government in the Australian Constitution.

Judicial independence is regarded as one of the foundation values of the Australian legal system, such that the High Court held in 2004 that a court capable of exercising federal judicial power must be, and must appear to be, an independent and impartial tribunal. Former Chief Justice Gerard Brennan described judicial independence as existing "to serve and protect not the governors but the governed", albeit one that "rests on the calibre and the character of the judges themselves". Despite general agreement as to its importance and common acceptance of some elements, there is no agreement as to each of the elements of judicial independence.

<i>Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales</i>

Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that dealt with the constitutional limits on State Courts' powers and the doctrine of jurisdictional error.

<i>Knight v Victoria</i>

Knight v Victoria is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia.

References

  1. ↑ Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [1996] HCA 24 , (1996) 189 CLR 51.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Goldsworthy, Jeffrey (2014). "Kable, Kirk and Judicial Statesmanship". Monash University Law Review . 41 (1): 75 – via Austlii.
  3. 1 2 Taylor, Greg (2015). "Conceived in sin, shaped in iniquity - The Kable principle as breach of the rule of law" (PDF). University of Queensland Law Journal. 12: 265 – via Austlii.
  4. ↑ Williams, George; Brennan, Sean & Lynch, Andrew (2014). Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (6 ed.). Leichhardt, NSW: Federation Press. pp. 543–44. ISBN   978-1-86287-918-8.
  5. ↑ Community Protection Act 1994 (NSW).
  6. ↑ Community Protection Act 1990 (Vic).
  7. ↑ Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (1995) 36 NSWLR 374.
  8. ↑ Mason, K. (26 February 2004). "What is wrong with top-down legal reasoning?". Sir Maurice Byers Memorial Lecture. Archived from the original on 30 August 2008.
  9. ↑ Williams, George; Brennan, Sean; Lynch, Andrew (2014). Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (6 ed.). Leichhardt, NSW: Federation Press. pp. 544–551. ISBN   978-1-86287-918-8.
  10. ↑ Kable v DPP [1996] HCA 24 at Toohey J, at para. 30 of his judgement
  11. ↑ Kable v State of New South Wales [2010] NSWSC 811.
  12. ↑ Kable v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 243.
  13. ↑ New South Wales v Kable [2013] HCA 26 , (2013) 252  CLR  118
  14. ↑ New South Wales v Kable: Case Summary [2013] HCASum 23.
  15. ↑ Williams, George; Brennan, Sean; Lynch, Andrew (2014). Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (6 ed.). Leichhardt, NSW: Federation Press. pp. 551–54. ISBN   978-1-86287-918-8.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.