Love v Commonwealth

Last updated

Love v Commonwealth; Thoms v Commonwealth
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Commonwealth Coat of Arms
Court High Court of Australia
Full case name
  • Love and The Commonwealth of Australia
  • Thoms and The Commonwealth of Australia
Decided11 February 2020 (2020-02-11)
Citations
Transcripts
Court membership
Judges sitting
Case opinions
  • Aboriginal Australians do not fall under the ambit of the Commonwealth Parliament's power, under section 51(xix) of the Constitution, to legislate in regard to "aliens" (per Bell, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman; Kiefel, Gageler and Keane dissenting).
  • As Thoms is an Aboriginal Australian and therefore not an alien, the Commonwealth does not have the power to deport him under the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (per Bell, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman).
  • On the facts before them, the Court was unable by majority to determine whether or not Love was an Aboriginal Australian.
Area of law
Constitutional law

Love v Commonwealth; Thoms v Commonwealth is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It is an important case in Australian constitutional law, deciding that Aboriginal Australians are not "aliens" for the purposes of section 51(xix) of the Constitution. The case was decided on 11 February 2020.

Contents

Background

Daniel Love and Brendan Thoms were men who had failed their migration character tests as a result of serving jail sentences. Neither Love nor Thoms was an Australian citizen, but both identified as Aboriginal Australians. [1] The government was trying to deport both men as aliens under the provisions of the Migration Act 1958, based on a 2014 amendment of the Act. [2] [3]

Love was a recognised member of the Kamilaroi people who was born in Papua New Guinea. He had been placed in immigration detention after he was sentenced to more than a year in jail for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. His permanent residency visa was revoked by Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, but this was later overturned and he was released from detention. [1]

Thoms was a native title holder and a member of the Gunggari people who was born in New Zealand. He was also placed in immigration detention after serving part of an 18-month sentence for domestic violence. He remained in detention until the judgment was handed down. [1]

The two men were aged in their 30s and 40s at the time of the court case. Both had lived in Australia since they were small children, and had close family in Australia. Both men were legal Australian permanent residents prior to their jail sentences. [1]

The Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervened and made submissions in support of both Love and Thoms. It argued that Aboriginality is equivalent to citizenship, on the basis the unique relationship between members of Aboriginal societies and the land and waters of Australia meant that Aboriginal Australians could not be considered "aliens" for the purposes of s 51(xix) of the Constitution. [4]

Decision

In the judgment, [5] each justice issued a separate opinion. [6] A majority of the Court (Bell, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman) found that Aboriginal Australians (understood according to the tripartite test in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) ) were not within the reach of the "aliens" power conferred by section 51(xix) of the Constitution. [2] [3] [5] .

As Thoms had already been recognised as an Aboriginal Australian through his native title claim, the majority of the Court determined that he was not an alien. [5] This meant that the power to deport non-citizens under the Migration Act 1958 could not be exercised against him. The majority could not, however, determine whether Love was an Aboriginal Australian and remitted the matter to the Federal Court to deal with that question.

Dissenting opinions

Kiefel and Gageler and Keane each delivered dissenting opinions.

Justice Gageler said he was opposed to the “judicial creation of any race-based constitutional distinction”, and that such a distinction, if it was to be created, should be created by a referendum. [7] He argued that citizenship and alienage are mutually exclusive, and that it was within the power of parliament to define these and not to be justiciable. [8] Kean expressed similar concerns about a race based limitation. [4]

Kiefel criticised Edelman who in his judgement argued that it would create a "hopeless and incoherent contradiction" within the legal system if despite the recognition of native title Aboriginal Australians could be treated as aliens. She stated that it would be wrong to assume that a connection to land, necessary for native title, could be used in a completely different are of the law. [8]

All three dissenting justices found no basis to limit parliament's power to determine alienage. [4] They implied that the majority's decision recognised a competing Aboriginal sovereignty, [6] which was carefully rejected in the Mabo decision. [4] [8] Kiefel and Kean said that the determination by Aboriginal elders of Aboriginality would prevent parliament from designating such people as aliens, thus creating a sovereignty which was rejected by Mabo (No. 2) ("Indigenous people are part of the people of Australia"). [6] Mabo is limited to native title law and geographically limited, only applying to Indigenous groups and their specific to particular lands. [4] They concluded that Aboriginal Australians can be aliens, and as the plaintiffs were not citizens, they could be deported. [4]

Consequences

The following day, Christian Porter, then Attorney-General of Australia, said the decision created "an entirely new category of people in terms of what the government can and can't do" a non-citizen non-alien, or "belonger". Porter said that the government would be looking to deport the small group of Aboriginal non-citizens who have committed serious offences in a different way. [9] Peter Dutton described the decision as "a very bad thing" that would be "exploited by lawyers", and said he had sought legal advice from the Department of Home Affairs that would be "looking to restrict the damage". [10]

Constitutional law professor Anne Twomey said that it was too early to tell what the ramifications would be, especially in light of the fact that each of the seven-person bench had given individual reasonings. The Law Council of Australia said that a number of "complex issues" had been raised, and would give rise to a great deal of debate and scrutiny. [7]

Wamba Wamba lawyer Eddie Synot of the Indigenous Law Centre at the University of New South Wales said the judgment concerned a "very narrow application of the aliens power" and explicitly stated that it was not a recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty. [7] [9]

On 8 June 2022, the High Court delivered its judgment in Thoms v Commonwealth. [11] It held that Thoms' detention under the Migration Act had not been unlawful, despite him being an Aboriginal Australian (and therefore a non-alien) at the time. According the majority of the Court (Kiefel, Keane and Gleeson, with whom Gageler and Steward generally agreed), this was because the power in section 51(xix) of the Constitution supports laws which authorise the detention of persons who are "reasonably suspected" of being an alien (applying the Court's earlier decision in Ruddick v Taylor [12] ). Because the officers who had detained Thoms could not have reasonably predicted the Court's decision in Love v Commonwealth, their suspicion that he was an alien was held to be objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The Commonwealth Government subsequently sought to overturn the precedent of the High Court's decision in Love v Commonwealth in Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Montgomery, a case in involving a New Zealand citizen culturally adopted as Aboriginal. [13] However, the Commonwealth's appeal was ultimately discontinued on 28 July 2022, following the election of the Albanese Labor Government in the 2022 Australian federal election. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Mabo v Queensland (No 2)</i> 1992 High Court of Australia decision which recognised native title

Mabo v Queensland is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that recognised the existence of Native Title in Australia. It was brought by Eddie Mabo and others against the State of Queensland, and decided on 3 June 1992. The case is notable for being the first in Australia to recognise pre-colonial land interests of Indigenous Australians within the common law of Australia.

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

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

In law, an alien is generally any person who is not a citizen or a national of a specific country, although definitions and terminology differ across legal systems.

<i>Mabo v Queensland (No 1)</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Mabo v Queensland , was a significant court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 8 December 1988. It found that the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985, which attempted to retrospectively abolish native title rights, was not valid according to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

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.

<i>Al-Kateb v Godwin</i> 2004 decision of the High Court of Australia

Al-Kateb v Godwin, was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 6 August 2004 that the indefinite detention of a stateless person was lawful. The case concerned Ahmed Al-Kateb, a Palestinian man born in Kuwait, who moved to Australia in 2000 and applied for a temporary protection visa. The Commonwealth Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse the application was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court. In 2002, Al-Kateb declared that he wished to return to Kuwait or Gaza. However, since no country would accept Al-Kateb, he was declared stateless and detained under the policy of mandatory detention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Susan Kiefel</span> Australian judge (born 1954)

Susan Mary Kiefel is an Australian lawyer and barrister who was the 13th Chief Justice of Australia from 2017 to 2023. She concurrently served on the High Court of Australia from 2007 to 2023, previously being a judge of both the Supreme Court of Queensland and the Federal Court of Australia. Kiefel is the first woman to serve in the position of Chief Justice.

The Samuel Griffith Society is an Australian conservative legal organisation founded in 1992 by a group led by former Chief Justice of Australia Sir Harry Gibbs, former Senator John Stone, businessman Hugh Morgan and legal academic Greg Craven. Named after Sir Samuel Griffith, one of the architects of the Australian Constitution, the society describes its aims as being: "to undertake and support research into [Australia's] constitutional arrangements, to encourage and promote widespread debate about the benefits of federalism, and to defend the present Constitution." It holds annual conferences, runs an annual national constitutional law essay competition and publishes an annual journal of conference proceedings entitled "Upholding the Australian Constitution".

<i>Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation</i> Judgment of the High Court of Australia

Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation is an Australian court case concerning the constitutional validity of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act 2009 (Cth) which sought to give one-off payments of up to $900 to Australian taxpayers. The decision of the High Court of Australia was announced on 3 April 2009, with its full reasons released on 7 July 2009.

<i>Plaintiff M70 v Minister for Immigration</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Plaintiff M70 is a decision by the High Court of Australia. The lawsuit concerned an injunction sought by multiple Afghan asylum seekers against immigration minister Chris Bowen. The injunction was to prevent Bowen from deporting the plaintiffs to Malaysia, pursuant to s198A of the Migration Act. The purpose of the deportation was to avoid their asylum application from being assessed by Australia.

<i>Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS</i> Case in Australian High Court regarding judicial review

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to immigration law, jurisdictional error and illogicality as a ground of judicial review.

The Migration Act 1958(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia that governs immigration to Australia. It set up Australia’s universal visa system (or entry permits). Its long title is "An Act relating to the entry into, and presence in, Australia of aliens, and the departure or deportation from Australia of aliens and certain other persons."

<i>Brown v Tasmania</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Brown v Tasmania, was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 18 October 2017. The case was an important decision about the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution in which the majority held that provisions of the Tasmanian Protesters Act were invalid as a burden on the implied freedom of political communication in a way that was not reasonably appropriate and adapted, or proportionate, to the legitimate purpose of protecting businesses and their operations.

<i>Alley v Gillespie</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Alley v Gillespie, was a significant decision of the High Court of Australia that considered the purpose and scope of s 46 of the Australian Constitution. It was the first application brought under the Common Informers Act 1975 (Cth).

Aboriginal Australian identity, sometimes known as Aboriginality, is the perception of oneself as Aboriginal Australian, or the recognition by others of that identity. Aboriginal Australians are one of two Indigenous Australian groups of peoples, the other being Torres Strait Islanders. There has also been discussion about the use of "Indigenous" vs "Aboriginal", or more specific group names, such as Murri or Noongar (demonyms), Kaurna or Yolngu, based on language, or a clan name. Usually preference of the person(s) in question is used, if known.

<i>ASIC v Kobelt</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It was an appeal brought by ASIC against a Mr Kobelt, seeking to overturn a unanimous decision of the Full Federal Court. It had been found that while Kobelt had contravened s29(1) of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth), he did not engage in "unconscionable conduct in connection with financial services" in contravention with s12CB(1) of the ASIC Act.

<i>Lewis v ACT</i> Legal case in the High Court of Australia

Lewis v ACT is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The decision is a significant Australian Tort Law ruling for its holdings on the role of damages.

<i>NZYQ v Minister for Immigration</i> 2023 decision of the High Court of Australia

NZYQ v Minister for Immigration is a 2023 decision of the High Court of Australia. It is an important case in Australian constitutional law, concerning the separation of powers under the Australian Constitution. It was the first judgment of the Gageler court.

<i>ASF17 v Commonwealth of Australia</i> 2024 decision of the High Court of Australia

ASF17 v Commonwealth of Australia is a 2024 decision of the High Court of Australia. It is an important case in Australian constitutional law.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Byrne, Elizabeth; Robertson, Josh (11 February 2020). "High Court rules Aboriginal people cannot be deported for criminal convictions, cannot be 'alien' to Australia". ABC News . Australia. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  2. 1 2 Karp, Paul (11 February 2020). "High court rules Aboriginal Australians are not 'aliens' under the constitution and cannot be deported". The Guardian . Retrieved 12 February 2020.
  3. 1 2 Byrne, Elizabeth; Robertson, Josh (11 February 2020). "Man released from detention as High Court rules Aboriginal people cannot be deported". ABC News . Australia. Retrieved 12 February 2020.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Love v Commonwealth of Australia; Thoms v Commonwealth of Australia[2020] HCA 3". Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS). Retrieved 22 June 2022.
  5. 1 2 3 Love v Commonwealth of Australia; Thoms v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] HCA 3. Judgment summary (PDF), High Court of Australia, 11 February 2020
  6. 1 2 3 Kate Slack; Arron Hartnett (2020). "Case note: Reflections on the High Court decision in Love v Commonwealth of Australia[2020] HCA 3: The Constitution, Indigenous rights and immigration law". Precedent (Australian Lawyers Alliance). Australasian Legal Information Institute. Precedent 37. Retrieved 29 September 2023. (The authors appeared, led by Stephen Keim SC, for the plaintiffs in Love.)
  7. 1 2 3 Wahlquist, Calla (12 February 2020). "Legal experts urge caution on high court ruling that Aboriginal Australians are not 'aliens'". The Guardian . Retrieved 12 February 2020.
  8. 1 2 3 Mikaela Smith (17 March 2021). "The divided decision in Love v Commonwealth – an analysis of Justice Gageler's and Justice Edelman's approaches to constitutional interpretation". Australian Public Law. Retrieved 29 September 2023.
  9. 1 2 Karp, Paul; Wahlquist, Calla (12 February 2020). "Coalition seeks to sidestep high court ruling that Aboriginal non-citizens can't be deported". The Guardian . Retrieved 12 February 2020.
  10. ↑ Young, Evan (13 February 2020). "'A very bad thing': Peter Dutton slams High Court's Aboriginal 'aliens' ruling". SBS News . Special Broadcasting Service . Retrieved 13 February 2020.
  11. ↑ Thoms v Commonwealth [2022] HCA 20 , (2020) 76 CLR 466(8 June 2022), High Court (Australia)
  12. ↑ Ruddick v Taylor [2005] HCA 48 , (2005) 222 CLR 612(8 September 2005), High Court (Australia)
  13. ↑ Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Montgomery (High Court of Australia, Case No S192/2021).
  14. ↑ Karp, Paul (28 July 2022). "Labor drops Coalition bid to overturn high court ruling that Indigenous Australians can't be aliens". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 31 December 2024.

Further reading

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.