R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry

Last updated

R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameThe King v Burgess; Ex parte Henry
Decided10 November 1936
Citations [1936] HCA 52, (1936) 55 CLR 608
Case history
Related actionsR v Poole; Ex parte Henry (1939) 61 CLR 634
Court membership
Judges sitting Latham CJ, Starke, Dixon, Evatt & McTiernan JJ
Case opinions
(5:0) The Commonwealth government's power to regulate interstate trade and commerce does not extend to intrastate trade and commerce.
(per Latham CJ, Starke, Dixon, Evatt & McTiernan JJ)

(3:2) The implementation of an international treaty is valid where the treaty is bona fide and the subject matter is of international concern.
(per Latham CJ, Starke, Evatt & McTiernan JJ; Dixon J dissenting)

Contents

(4:1) The regulations were invalid because they did not carry out and give effect to the convention.
(per Latham CJ, Dixon, Evatt & McTiernan JJ; Starke J dissenting)

R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry [1] is a 1936 High Court of Australia case where the majority took a broad view of the external affairs power in the Constitution but held that the interstate trade and commerce power delineated trade and commerce within a state, rejecting an argument that the power extended to activities that were commingled with interstate activities. The court set aside the conviction of daredevil pilot Goya Henry for breach of the regulations as they went further than was necessary to carry out and give effect to the convention.

Background

Aviator Goya Henry in front of his Genairco Biplane Goya Henry standing beneath a skull and crossbones.jpg
Aviator Goya Henry in front of his Genairco Biplane

In 1919 Australia had entered into the Convention Relating to the Regulation of Aerial Navigation, [2] and parliament enacted the Aircraft Navigation Act 1920, which authorised the Governor-General to make regulations to give effect to the Convention. [3] Henry was convicted of flying without a license, having flown around, over and under the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The Commonwealth relied upon 3 sources of constitutional power, interstate trade and commerce, foreign affairs and territories. [4]

Goya Henry was an aviator who had his aviation licence suspended. Two days after the suspension he nevertheless flew a plane, setting off from Mascot airport and then flying around, over and under the Sydney Harbour Bridge. He was convicted of breaching regulation 6 of the federal Air Navigation Regulations which prohibited an unlicensed person from flying an aircraft "within the limits of the Commonwealth". The regulations were made pursuant to section 4 of the Aircraft Navigation Act 1920, which authorised the Governor-General to make regulations to give effect to the Convention for the Regulation of Aerial Navigation. He challenged the constitutional validity of the regulation. [5] [4] [6]

Decision

External affairs

The Constitution gave no express power to the Commonwealth to regulate aviation, a subject that did not exist when the Constitution was drafted at the end of the 19th century. The Commonwealth argued that its rules were made in pursuance of an international convention and were, therefore, laws with respect to external affairs. [4] [7]

The majority (Latham CJ, Evatt & McTiernan JJ) took a broad view of the external affairs power, and accepted that the Commonwealth could enact legislation pursuant to a bona fide international treaty. Latham CJ dismissed arguments attempting to exclude the external affairs power from encompassing certain domestic subjects. [8] Evatt and McTiernan JJ concluded that once a treaty was signed and entered into, the provisions contained therein were brought under the external affairs power by virtue of their inclusion in the treaty. [9] [10] [11]

The minority (Starke & Dixon JJ) took a narrower approach, with Starke J holding that the treaty may have to be 'of sufficient international significance to make it a legitimate subject for international co-operation and agreement', however this convention was of sufficient significance. [12] Dixon J considered that the power of the Commonwealth to implement treaties through legislation was necessarily limited by the federal nature of the Constitution, so the subject matter of the treaty upon which it was based had to be 'indisputably international in character'. [9] [13]

Even under the broad view of the external affairs power, the Court invalidated the regulations on the grounds that they did not carry out and give effect to the conventions of the treaty. [4] [9]

Trade and commerce

The only other power that seemed available was 'trade and commerce with other countries and among the States'. Henry however, had not been flying from or to any other state or country. The Commonwealth argued that the commingling in air routes and airports of aircraft proceeding intrastate with those traveling interstate, enabled it to control all aircraft. The Court rejected the commingling argument, preferring to maintain a distinction between interstate and intrastate trade. Henry could not be prevented by the Commonwealth from stunt-flying around Sydney Harbour under the commerce power. The Constitution clearly distinguished between intrastate and interstate commerce, and confined the Commonwealth to the latter. [4]

Aftermath

The Commonwealth held a referendum in 1937 to have the Constitution amended to give it express power over aviation. Although the measure received 53.56% of the 'yes' vote nationwide, it did not gain a majority support in a majority of states, with only Victoria and Queensland supporting the measure. [14] The uniform regulation of air navigation was achieved by uniform state laws which applied the Commonwealth regulations. [4] [15]

In 1939 Henry was convicted of another aviation offence, this time flying too low over Mascot aerodrome. The High Court upheld the 1937 regulations and his conviction. [4] [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia enumerates the legislative powers granted to the Parliament of Australia by the Australian States at Federation. Each subsection, or 'head of power', provides a topic under which the parliament is empowered to make laws. There are other sections in the constitution that enable the parliament to enact laws, although the scope of those other sections are generally limited in comparison with section 51.

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.

The 1913 Australian referendum was held on 31 May 1913. It contained six referendum questions and was held in conjunction with the 1913 federal election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1937 Australian referendum (Aviation)</span>

The Constitution Alteration (Aviation) Bill 1936, was an unsuccessful proposal to alter the Australian Constitution to extend the Commonwealth legislative power in respect to air navigation and aircraft. It was put to voters for approval in a referendum held on 6 March 1937.

<i>Commonwealth v Tasmania</i> 1983 Australian constitutional law case

Commonwealth v Tasmania was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 1 July 1983. The case was a landmark decision in Australian constitutional law, and was a significant moment in the history of conservation in Australia. The case centred on the proposed construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Gordon River in Tasmania, which was supported by the Tasmanian government, but opposed by the Australian federal government and environmental groups.

<i>Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen, was a significant court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 11 May 1982. It concerned the constitutional validity of parts of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and the discriminatory acts of the Government of Queensland in blocking the purchase of land by Aboriginal people in northern Queensland.

Section 51(i) of the Australian Constitution enables the Parliament of Australia to make laws about:

Section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to legislate with respect to "foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth". This power has become known as "the corporations power", the extent of which has been the subject of numerous judicial cases.

Section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia the right to legislate with respect to "external affairs".

The reserved powers doctrine was a principle used by the inaugural High Court of Australia in the interpretation of the Constitution of Australia, that emphasised the context of the Constitution, drawing on principles of federalism, what the Court saw as the compact between the newly formed Commonwealth and the former colonies, particularly the compromises that informed the text of the constitution. The doctrine involved a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the specific powers of the Federal Parliament to preserve the powers that were intended to be left to the States. The doctrine was challenged by the new appointments to the Court in 1906 and was ultimately abandoned by the High Court in 1920 in the Engineers' Case, replaced by an approach to interpretation that emphasised the text rather than the context of the Constitution.

Section 51(vi) of the Australian Constitution, commonly called the defence power, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the right to legislate with respect to the defence of Australia and the control of the defence forces. The High Court has adopted a different approach to the interpretation of the defence power, which emphasises the purpose of the legislation, primarily the defence of Australia, rather than the subject matter.

<i>Airlines of New South Wales Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 2)</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Airlines of New South Wales Pty Ltd v New South Wales , was a High Court of Australia case about the validity of Commonwealth regulations about intrastate air navigation. Although the Commonwealth has the power to regulate interstate air navigation under s 51(i) of the Constitution, it can only regulate intrastate air navigation under the implied incidental power attached to that head of power. It was held that intrastate air navigation can be regulated to the extent that it provides for the safety of, or prevention of physical interference with, interstate or foreign air navigation.

<i>Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd</i>

Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd, also known as the Concrete Pipes Case, is a High Court of Australia case that discusses the scope of the corporations power in section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution. This was an important case in Australian constitutional law because it overruled the decision in the earlier case of Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead, which held that the corporations power only extended as far as the regulation of their conduct in relation to their transactions with or affecting the public. Since this case, the Commonwealth has had at least the ability to regulate the trading activities of trading corporations, thus opening the way for an expansion in Commonwealth power.

<i>Bank Nationalisation Case</i> Judgment of the High Court of Australia

The Bank Nationalisation Case, also called Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth (1948) 76 CLR 1, is a 1948 decision of the High Court of Australia that invalidated Chiefley government legislation that attempted to nationalise the private banking sector. Separate majorities held that the legislation breached three different provisions of the Constitution: section 92, section 51(xxxi) and section 75(iii).

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (1915)

New South Wales v Commonwealth, commonly known as the Wheat case, or more recently as the Inter-State Commission case, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1915 regarding judicial separation of power. It was also a leading case on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that is guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.

Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, as far as is still relevant today is:

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

Section 99 of the Constitution of Australia, is one of several important non-discrimination provisions that govern actions of the Commonwealth and the various States.

<i>Roche v Kronheimer</i>

Roche v Kronheimer is an early case in which the High Court considered the defence power and external affairs power of the Commonwealth under the Australian Constitution and the Parliament's power to delegate certain legislative powers to the Executive. The Court concluded that Federal Parliament had the power to implement the Treaty of Versailles under the defence power and to delegate that implementation to the Governor-General. Higgins J also saw it as a valid exercise of the external affair power.

<i>Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co, commonly known as Whybrow's case or the Boot Trades case, was the third of a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia in 1910 concerning the boot manufacturing industry and the role of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in preventing and settling industrial disputes. In doing so the High Court considered the constitutional power of the Federal Parliament to provide for common rule awards and the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant prohibition against the Arbitration Court. The majority held in Whybrow that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with a State law, but that different minimum wages were not inconsistent as it was possible to obey both laws. In Whybrow the High Court established the doctrine of ambit, with the emphasis on the precise claim made and refused, and the practice with respect to "paper disputes" being treated "prima facie as genuine and real", with the majority holding that the High Court had power to order prohibition to correct jurisdictional error as part of its original jurisdiction. Finally in Whybrow the High Court unanimously held that the Federal Parliament had no constitutional power to provide for common rule awards.

<i>SS Kalibia v Wilson</i>

SS Kalibia v Wilson, was the first decision of the High Court of Australia on the extent of the power of the Australian Parliament to make laws about shipping and navigation, including the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court held that the power was limited to overseas and interstate trade and commerce. There was no separate power about navigation and shipping.

References

  1. ↑ R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry [1936] HCA 52, (1936) 55 CLR 608 (10 November 1936), High Court
  2. ↑ "Convention relating to the regulation of Aerial Navigation". League of Nations Treaty Series. 13 October 1919. Retrieved 16 October 2021– via WorldLII.
  3. ↑ Aircraft Navigation Act 1920 (Cth).
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Richardson, J E (1965), "Aviation Law in Australia", Federal Law Review (1965) 1(2) Federal Law Review 242. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
  5. ↑ Ex parte in the case name is used to indicate "on the application" of Henry, not in the alternate sense of being heard in the absence of a party.
  6. ↑ R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry (1936) 55 CLR 608, pp. 609–10.
  7. ↑ R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry (1936) 55 CLR 608, pp. 613–15.
  8. ↑ R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry (1936) 55 CLR 608, p. 639, per Latham CJ.
  9. 1 2 3 Aroney, N; Gerangelos, P; Murray, S & Stellios, J (2015). The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia: History, Principle and Interpretation. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. pp.  185-186. ISBN   9780521759182 . Retrieved 17 October 2021.
  10. ↑ Sawer, Geoffrey (1955), "Execution of Treaties by Legislation in the Commonwealth of Australia", University of Queensland Law Journal (1955) 2(4) University of Queensland Law Journal 297 Retrieved 16 October 2021.
  11. ↑ R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry (1936) 55 CLR 608, p. 696, per Evatt & McTiernan JJ.
  12. ↑ R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry (1936) 55 CLR 608 , pp. 658–9 per Starke J citing
    Willoughby, Westel W (1929). The Constitutional law of the United States (2nd ed.). New York: Baker, Voorhis. OCLC   310661285.
  13. ↑ R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry (1936) 55 CLR 608, p. 669, per Dixon J.
  14. ↑ Handbook of the 44th Parliament "Part 5 - Referendums and Plebiscites - Referendum results". Parliamentary Library of Australia..
  15. ↑ eg Air Navigation Act 1937 (WA)
  16. ↑ R v Poole; Ex parte Henry [1939] HCA 19 , (1939) 61 CLR 634 (19 May 1939), High Court
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.