 |
|---|
The Supreme Court of Nauru was the highest court in the judicial system of the Republic of Nauru till the establishment of the Nauruan Court of Appeal in 2018.
| |
|---|
The Supreme Court of Nauru was the highest court in the judicial system of the Republic of Nauru till the establishment of the Nauruan Court of Appeal in 2018.
It is established by part V of the Constitution, adopted upon Nauru's independence from Australia in 1968. Art. 48 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as "a superior court of record", with jurisdiction prescribed constitutionally and by law. Art.49 stipulates that the Chief Justice is appointed by the President and sits with other justices, likewise appointed by the President, whose number is to be determined by law. Only barristers and solicitors who have been practising for at least five years may be appointed to the Supreme Court. Articles 50 and 51 prescribe that a Supreme Court judge vacates his or her office upon attaining the age of 65 (unless that age limit be amended by legislation), or upon being removed for incapacity or misconduct by a motion adopted by at least two-thirds of members of Parliament, or upon tending his or her resignation to the President. Art.54 stipulates that "[t]he Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction to determine any question arising under or involving the interpretation or effect of any provision of th[e] Constitution"; art.55 prescribes that Cabinet "may refer questions on Constitution to the Supreme Court", and that "the Supreme Court shall pronounce in open court its opinion on the question". [1] Thus the Supreme Court is empowered to deliver an advisory opinion, albeit only upon questions referred to it by Cabinet. [2]
The Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction. The Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute notes that the Supreme Court "has unlimited original civil jurisdiction and although the Courts Act [1972] does not so specify it is assumed that it has original criminal jurisdiction". [3] Additionally, as per the Appeals Act 1972, the Supreme Court hears appeals from the District Court in both criminal and civil cases, on questions of fact or law. [4] The Family Court, however, functions separately, and no appeal is possible from this court to the Supreme Court. [3]
Despite its name, the Supreme Court is not the highest court of appeal in most cases. Its judgements on constitutional matters are final, but any other case may be appealed further to the Appellate Court. [5] In addition, art.57 of the Constitution stipulates that "Parliament may provide that an appeal lies as prescribed by law from a judgment, decree, order or sentence of the Supreme Court to a court of another country". [1] This provision was implemented in an agreement between Nauru and Australia in 1976, providing for appeals from the Supreme Court of Nauru to the High Court of Australia in both criminal and civil cases, with certain exceptions; in particular, no case pertaining to the Constitution of Nauru may be decided by the Australian court. [6]
This appellate jurisdiction concluded on 12 March 2018 after the Government of Nauru unilaterally ended the arrangement, [7] [8] [9] which had previously been advocated by the Australian Law Reform Commission [10] ) and others as sitting awkwardly with the High Court of Australia's other responsibilities. [7] [11] In a speech to parliament on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Nauru's independence, President Baron Waqa stated: "Severance of ties to Australia's highest court is a logical step towards full nationhood and an expression of confidence in Nauru's ability to determine its own destiny." [7] Nauruan Justice Minister David Adeang cited the cost of appeals to the High Court as another reason for Nauru to establish its own Court of Appeal as the country's highest court. [12] The termination of the agreement required 90 days notice, which Nauru gave on 12 December 2017, but did not become known until after the Supreme Court had reheard a case relating to a 2015 protest outside the Nauruan parliament that was remitted to it "for hearing according to law" by the High Court [13] after quashing the original decision. [7] [8] [9] The reheard case again imposed increased sentences on the defendants who, with the new Court of Appeals not yet established, have been left with no avenue of appeal, a situation that has been criticised as deeply unfair. [8] The Nauru Court of Appeal Act was passed in 2018 and commenced in 2020. [14] However, due to the coronavirus pandemic, the judicial positions of the Court of Appeal were not filled till mid-2022 when the first hearings began. [15]
As Nauruan law is derived from the English and Australian common law system, precedents set by the Supreme Court are integrated to national law, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law binds lower courts. Such precedents are, however, superseded by statute law. [16]
The Supreme Court heard its first case, Detamaigo v Demaure, in April 1969. The case consisted in an "appeal against a decision of the Nauru Lands Committee as to the persons beneficially entitled to the personality of the estate of a deceased Nauruan". In a very brief ruling, Chief Justice Thompson struck out the appeal, on the grounds that "this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals from the Nauru Lands Committee's determinations in respect of personalty", as such jurisdiction was not specifically provided by the Nauru Lands Committee Ordinance 1956. [17]
The first constitutional case to reach the Supreme Court was Jeremiah v Nauru Local Government Council, decided in March 1971, on petition to the Supreme Court. The petitioner, Jeremiah, was a Nauruan man who wished to marry a non-Nauruan woman. The Nauru Local Government Council, whose consent was required for any lawful marriage between a Nauruan and a non-Nauruan (as per the Births, Deaths and Marriages Ordinance 1957), refused to grant consent, without providing a reason. Jeremiah argued this was a violation of article 3 of the Constitution, which provides that "every person in Nauru is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual". Chief Justice Thompson, however, ruled that the constitutional meaning of "fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual" was to be restricted to the rights and freedoms explicitly established by the Constitution. Thus, no constitutional right to marry existed. [18]
In October 2010, the Supreme Court ruled on its most recent constitutional case, In the Matter of the Constitution and in the Matter of the Dissolution of the Eighteenth Parliament, to determine whether the dissolution of a deadlocked Parliament and the ensuing proclamation of a state of emergency by President Marcus Stephen were constitutionally valid. The case had been brought by members of the parliamentary Opposition. Justice John von Doussa ruled in favour of the President, stating that art.77 of the Constitution gave the President full latitude to determine whether a state of emergency should be declared. [19]
The current Chief Justice is Filimone Jitoko, he succeeded Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi in 2017. Justice Crulci (2014–2017) and Resident Magistrate Emma Garo (2014-2016) were the first women to be appointed to the judiciary in Nauru.
| Name | Took office | Left office | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ronald Knox-Mawer | 1968 | 1970 | [20] |
| Ian William Thompson | 1970 | 1983 | [21] |
| Francis Lenton Daly | 1983 | 1984 | [22] |
| H. Gilbert | 1984 | 1984 | |
| B. J. McK. Kerr (acting) | 1984 | 1985 | |
| Sir Gaven Donne KBE | 1985 | 2001 | |
| Barry Connell | 2001 | 2006 | [23] |
| Robin Millhouse QC | 2006 | 2010 | |
| Geoffrey Eames AM QC | 2010 | 2014 | |
| Joni Madraiwiwi | 2014 | 2016 | [24] |
| Filimone Jitoko | 2017 | 2021 | |
| Daniel Fatiaki | 2021 | Incumbent | [25] |
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is the highest court of appeal for the Crown Dependencies, the British Overseas Territories, some Commonwealth countries and a few institutions in the United Kingdom. Established on 14 August 1833 to hear appeals formerly heard by the King-in-Council, the Privy Council formerly acted as the court of last resort for the entire British Empire, other than for the United Kingdom itself.
The politics of Nauru take place in a framework of a parliamentary representative democratic republic, whereby the President of Nauru is the head of government of the executive branch. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the parliament. The Judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature.
The Court of Cassation is the supreme court for civil and criminal cases in France. It is one of the country's four apex courts, along with the Council of State, the Constitutional Council and the Jurisdictional Disputes Tribunal.
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.
The Supreme Court of Ireland is the highest judicial authority in Ireland. It is a court of final appeal and exercises, in conjunction with the Court of Appeal and the High Court, judicial review over Acts of the Oireachtas. The Supreme Court also has appellate jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the Constitution of Ireland by governmental bodies and private citizens. It sits in the Four Courts in Dublin.
The Constitutional Court of South Africa is a supreme constitutional court established by the Constitution of South Africa, and is the apex court in the South African judicial system, with general jurisdiction.
An advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a court or a commission like an election commission that does not have the effect of adjudicating a specific legal case, but merely advises on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law. Some countries have procedures by which the executive or legislative branches may certify important questions to the judiciary and obtain an advisory opinion. In other countries or specific jurisdictions, courts may be prohibited from issuing advisory opinions.
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 Nepal is the highest court in Nepal. It has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the seven High Courts and extraordinary original jurisdiction. The court consists of twenty Justices and one Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka is the highest court in Sri Lanka and the final judicial instance of record. Established in 1801 and empowered to exercise its powers subject to the provisions of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, the Supreme Court has ultimate appellate jurisdiction in constitutional matters and takes precedence over all lower courts. The Sri Lankan judicial system is a complex blend of common law and civil law. In some cases, such as those involving capital punishment, the decision may be passed on to the President of Sri Lanka for clemency petitions. The current Chief Justice of Sri Lanka is Jayantha Jayasuriya.
The Court of Appeal of Singapore is the highest court in the judicial system of Singapore. It is the upper division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the lower being the High Court. The Court of Appeal consists of the chief justice, who is the president of the Court, and the judges of the Court of Appeal. The chief justice may ask judges of the High Court to sit as members of the Court of Appeal to hear particular cases. The seat of the Court of Appeal is the Supreme Court Building.
The Federal Court of Australia is an Australian superior court of record 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.
In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.
The judiciary of Pakistan is the national system of courts that maintains the law and order in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Pakistan uses a common law system, which was introduced during the British Raj, with influence of medieval-era local judicial systems based on religious and cultural practices. The Constitution of Pakistan lays down the fundamentals and working of the Pakistani judiciary.
The courts of South Africa are the civil and criminal courts responsible for the administration of justice in South Africa. They apply the law of South Africa and are established under the Constitution of South Africa or under Acts of the Parliament of South Africa.
The judiciary of Jamaica is based on the judiciary of the United Kingdom. The courts are organized at four levels, with additional provision for appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. The Court of Appeal is the highest appellate court. The Supreme Court has unlimited jurisdiction in all cases, and sits as the Circuit Court to try criminal cases. The Parish Court in each parish hears both criminal and civil cases, excluding grave offences. The Petty Sessions are held under Justices of the Peace, with power to hear minor crimes.
Nauruan law, since Nauru's independence from Australia in 1968, is derived primarily from English and Australian common law, though it also integrates indigenous customary law to a limited extent. Nauruan common law is founded mainly on statute law enacted by the Parliament of Nauru, and on precedents set by judicial interpretations of statutes, customs and prior precedents.
The Judiciary of Cyprus is the system of courts which interprets and applies the law in Cyprus. It is largely based on the English model. Judicial independence is safeguarded by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of the Gambia is a superior court of record and the highest court in The Gambia. Established in 1851, it has appellate and original jurisdiction over any law exceeding the powers conferred by the Constitution or any law upon the National Assembly or any other person or authority.
The judiciary of South Korea is the judicial branch of South Korean central government, established by Chapter 5 and 6 of the Constitution of South Korea.
Recommendation 19—1. The Attorney-General should consult with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade regarding the feasibility of terminating the treaty between Australia and Nauru, which provides for certain appeals to be brought to the High Court from the Supreme Court of Nauru. If termination is considered feasible, the Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 should be repealed.