The Supreme Court of Christmas Island was the highest court for Christmas Island, an external territory of Australia. The court was originally established in 1958 after sovereignty over the island was transferred from the United Kingdom to Australia. The court had jurisdiction to deal with all serious crimes and major civil claims for damages occurring on the island. The court was abolished on 10 May 2002.
Judges from Australian courts were appointed to be judges of the court. Those judges would travel to the island to hear, consider and determine cases. In 1992, courts in Western Australia were given concurrent authority to deal with cases on the island, and those courts became the main venue in which litigation was conducted. Since the court's abolition, its functions have been replaced by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which now has sole jurisdiction on the island.
Europeans first discovered the island of Christmas Island on Christmas Day, 25 December 1643. Captain William Mynors gave the island its name because of the day it was found.
The British Crown annexed the uninhabited island on 6 June 1888 following the discovery of phosphate on the island. The island was annexed to the Straits Settlements colony on 10 June 1900. Japanese Imperial Forces occupied the island during the Second World War. After the end of the Second World War, a military court was set up in Singapore to prosecute seven people for mutiny during the war. With the dissolution of the Straits Settlements in 1946, the island was included within the new Singapore colony. On 1 October 1958, sovereignty over the island was transferred to the Australian Government following a payment to the Government of Singapore, [1] after a brief period as a separate British colony.
Until 1992, Singapore laws continued to apply to the island, although this changed when legislation was passed bringing the laws of the country into line with Australian law. [2] [3]
In 1958 Australia accepted Christmas Island as a territory, [4] and established the court under the Christmas Island Act 1958. [5] The court was designated a superior court of record and had all the same powers that other supreme courts in Australia had. The court was to be constituted according to local ordinances made by the Governor-General of Australia on the advice of the Australian Government. [6] [7]
The court was a superior court and a court of record. Judges appointed by the Governor-General constituted it as required. The court was permitted to sit anywhere in Australia as the interests of justice required, and was not confined to hearing a case on the island. [8] When hearing criminal cases, the court sat with a jury to determine an accused person's guilt. [9] If the court sat outside the island, the court could use jurors from the State or Territory that the court was actually sitting at. [10]
Name | Position | From | To | Term | Comments | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Edward Arthur Dunphy | Judge | 9 March 1961 | 31 December 1982 | 21 years, 297 days | Commonwealth Industrial Court (1956–1982) ACT Supreme Court (1958–1982) Supreme Court of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands (1961–1982) Supreme Court of Norfolk Island (1969–1982) Court of Appeal of Nauru (1967–1982) | [11] [12] |
Sir William Forster | Judge | 20 September 1979 | 30 January 1989 | 9 years, 132 days | [13] [14] | |
John Gallop | Additional Judge | 20 September 1979 | 8 May 1989 | 9 years, 230 days | [13] | |
Judge | 9 May 1989 | 30 July 2000 | 11 years, 82 days | [14] | ||
Robert French | Additional Judge | 9 May 1989 | 15 November 2000 | 11 years, 190 days | [14] |
A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.
The Family Court of Australia was a superior Australian federal court of record which deals with family law matters, such as divorce applications, parenting disputes, and the division of property when a couple separate. Together with the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, it covered family law matters in all states and territories of Australia except for Western Australia, which has a separate Family Court. Its core function was to determine cases with the most complex law, facts and parties, to cover specialised areas in family law, and to provide national coverage as the national appellate court for family law matters.
A justice of the peace (JP) is a judicial officer of a lower court, elected or appointed by means of a commission to keep the peace. In past centuries the term commissioner of the peace was often used with the same meaning. Depending on the jurisdiction, such justices dispense summary justice or merely deal with local administrative applications in common law jurisdictions. Justices of the peace are appointed or elected from the citizens of the jurisdiction in which they serve, and are usually not required to have any formal legal education in order to qualify for the office. Some jurisdictions have varying forms of training for JPs.
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.
The legal system of Singapore is based on the English common law system. Major areas of law – particularly administrative law, contract law, equity and trust law, property law and tort law – are largely judge-made, though certain aspects have now been modified to some extent by statutes. However, other areas of law, such as criminal law, company law and family law, are largely statutory in nature.
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 Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory is the highest court of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). It has unlimited jurisdiction within the territory in civil matters and hears the most serious criminal matters.
The High Court of Singapore is the lower division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the upper division being the Court of Appeal. The High Court consists of the chief justice and the judges of the High Court. Judicial Commissioners are often appointed to assist with the Court's caseload. There are two specialist commercial courts, the Admiralty Court and the Intellectual Property Court, and a number of judges are designated to hear arbitration-related matters. In 2015, the Singapore International Commercial Court was established as part of the Supreme Court of Singapore, and is a division of the High Court. The other divisions of the high court are the General Division, the Appellate Division, and the Family Division. The seat of the High Court is the Supreme Court Building.
The Supreme Court of Norfolk Island is the superior court for the Australian territory of Norfolk Island. It has unlimited jurisdiction within the territory in civil matters and hears the most serious criminal matters. It also has jurisdiction over the Coral Sea Islands Territory. All matters are heard before a single judge, including appeals from the Court of Petty Sessions. In the Australian court hierarchy, it is one of eight state and territory Supreme Courts having unlimited jurisdiction in their respective parts of Australia. Appeal lies to the Federal Court of Australia, from which an appeal by special leave can be made to the High Court of Australia.
The Federal Court of Australia is an Australian superior court which has jurisdiction to deal with most civil disputes governed by federal law, along with some summary and indictable criminal matters. Cases are heard at first instance mostly by single judges. In cases of importance, a full court comprising three judges can be convened upon determination by the Chief Justice. The Court also has appellate jurisdiction, which is mostly exercised by a Full Court comprising three judges, the only avenue of appeal from which lies to the High Court of Australia. In the Australian court hierarchy, the Federal Court occupies a position equivalent to the supreme courts of each of the states and territories. In relation to the other courts in the federal stream, it is superior to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for all jurisdictions except family law. It was established in 1976 by the Federal Court of Australia Act.
The states and territories are the second level of government of Australia. The states are administrative divisions that are self-governing polities that are partly sovereign, having ceded some sovereign rights to the federal government. They have their own constitutions, legislatures, executive governments, judiciaries and law enforcement agencies that administer and deliver public policies and programs. Territories can be autonomous and administer local policies and programs much like the states in practice, but are still legally subordinate to the federal government.
The judicial officers of the Republic of Singapore work in the Supreme Court and the State Courts to hear and determine disputes between litigants in civil cases and, in criminal matters, to determine the liability of accused persons and their sentences if they are convicted.
The Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory is a court of summary jurisdiction that deals with the majority of criminal law matters and the majority of small civil law matters in the Australian Capital Territory, the Jervis Bay Territory and the Australian Antarctic Territory.
The Vice Admiralty Court was a prerogative court established in the late 18th century in the colony of New South Wales, which was to become a state of Australia. A vice admiralty court is in effect an admiralty court. The word "vice" in the name of the court denoted that the court represented the Lord Admiral of the United Kingdom. In English legal theory, the Lord Admiral, as vice-regal of the monarch, was the only person who had authority over matters relating to the sea. The Lord Admiral would authorize others as his deputies or surrogates to act. Generally, he would appoint a person as a judge to sit in the Court as his surrogate. By appointing Vice-Admirals in the colonies, and by constituting courts as Vice-Admiralty Courts, the terminology recognized that the existence and superiority of the "mother" court in the United Kingdom. Thus, the "vice" tag denoted that whilst it was a separate court, it was not equal to the "mother" court. In the case of the New South Wales court, a right of appeal lay back to the British Admiralty Court, which further reinforced this superiority. In all respects, the court was an Imperial court rather than a local Colonial court.
The Supreme Court of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands is the de jure superior court for the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, an Australian external territory. The court was originally established in 1958 after the British Government transferred sovereignty for the islands from Singapore to Australia. The court had jurisdiction to deal with all serious crimes and major civil claims for damages occurring on the Island.
Hon. Edward Arthur Dunphy was a justice within the Australian federal court system.
The Commonwealth Industrial Court, known as the Australian Industrial Court from 1973, was a specialist court to deal with industrial matters, principally the enforcement of awards and orders of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Over time it took on more matters and its judges were allocated a wide range of judicial tasks until it was replaced in 1977 by the Federal Court of Australia which had a more general jurisdiction covering matters arising under Australian federal law.
Crosby v Kelly is an important Federal Court of Australia case concerning the jurisdiction of the court to hear defamation claims. The judgment of the Full Court confirmed that the Court has original jurisdiction to hear defamation claims that could be heard by a Territory court, specifically the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The consequence of this is that almost any defamatory comment made on the Internet and in the national press could be brought before the Federal Court.
In April 1988 the court tried two defendants concerning the murder of Tan Soo Cher (Tan). Tan had been murdered during the early hours of 12 May 1987 by the infliction of multiple stab wounds to the front and back of his torso and his arms. The defendants were alleged to have approached Tan in the hope of borrowing money. On the defendants’ version of events, Tan refused and brandished a knife. The defendants claimed to have disarmed Tan, stabbed him, and then left with the money found on Tan. The defendants argued self-defence at their trial. [1]
The trial was held in Western Australia rather than Christmas Island and led to the conviction of the defendants. On appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, Justices Jenkinson, Spender and French ordered new trials because the jury was not properly directed as to provocation. The case was unusual in that the defendants were tried on the basis of a murder charge under the Singapore Criminal Code, which continued to apply on Christmas Island, rather than Australian law. The Court remarked that the case highlighted "the legal twilight" in which Australians on Christmas Island lived. [1] : at 55 The Court said that criminal laws were established under the Singapore Code, unchanged since 1958, which in turn had been based on the Indian Penal Code drafted in 1837 and introduced in India in 1862. [1] : at 56 This all led to the unsatisfactory situation of prosecuting Australians under Singaporean law.
Since 1992, courts in Western Australia have undertaken the work of the court under a service delivery arrangement with the Commonwealth Government. This was introduced at the same time as the introduction of Western Australian law to the island. The Western Australian Magistrates Court, District Court, Supreme Court, Family Court, Children's Court and Coroner's Court all provide services to the island as required. [2] As a result, a separate superior court in the territory was no longer necessary. A proclamation issued by the Governor-General formally abolished the Court on 10 May 2002. [3]