Thomas v Mowbray

Last updated

Thomas v Mowbray
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameJoseph Terrence Thomas; Plaintiff v Graham Mowbray, Federal Magistrate & Ors; Defendants
Decided2 August 2007
Citation(s) [2007] HCA 33, (2007) 233 CLR 307
Case history
Prior action(s)None
Case opinions
(5:2) Subdivision B of Division 104 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, which allows for the making of "interim control orders", is a valid law of the Commonwealth (per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Callinan, Heydon & Crennan JJ; Kirby J & Hayne J dissenting in separate judgments)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon and Crennan JJ

Thomas v Mowbray, [1] was a decision handed of the High Court of Australia on 2 August 2007 concerning the constitutional validity of "interim control orders" under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. [2] The case was brought by Joseph Terrence Thomas (referred to as "Jihad" Jack Thomas by the media), where he sought to challenge the interim control order that had been placed on him by a Federal Magistrate. [3] The High Court ruled, by a 5:2 majority, that interim control orders were constitutional.

Contents

Background facts

Thomas had been the first Australian to be convicted under anti-terrorism laws introduced in Australia after the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States. [4] He was sentenced on 31 March 2006 to five years prison with a non-parole period of two years. [5] The trial was highly controversial, as the evidence used to prosecute Thomas consisted solely of an interview conducted in a Pakistani military prison. [6] Despite claims that the evidence was obtained under duress and that Thomas had been tortured, the judge deemed the interview to be admissible. The conviction was overturned on appeal by the Victorian Court of Appeal in the case of R v Thomas , with the appeals judges ruling that the trial judge should have ruled the evidence inadmissible. [7] [8]

On 27 August 2006, the Federal Magistrates Court (constituted by the first defendant) placed Thomas on an interim control order. The Court's order was made on the following grounds: [9]

The order placed the following restrictions on Thomas:

High Court judgment

Prior to the Federal Magistrates Court confirming the interim order, i.e. making it permanent, Thomas commenced his special case in the High Court. He joined the magistrate, the Australian Federal Police officer that brought the application for the control order and the Commonwealth as defendants in the action. The Attorneys-General for New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia intervened, largely in support of the Commonwealth. [15] The Federal Magistrates Court proceedings were, therefore, adjourned by consent of the parties.

The special case that eventually came before the High Court posed the following four questions for the Court's consideration:

Q1 #Is Division 104 of the Criminal Code invalid because it confers on a federal court non-judicial power contrary to Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution?

A Subdivision B of Division 104 is valid; otherwise inappropriate to answer [1]

Q2 #Is Division 104 of the Criminal Code invalid because insofar as it confers judicial power on a federal court, it authorises the exercise of that power in a manner contrary to Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution?

A Subdivision B of Division 104 is valid; otherwise inappropriate to answer. [1]

Q3 Is Division 104 of the Criminal Code invalid because it is not supported by one or more express or implied heads of legislative power under the Commonwealth Constitution?

A Subdivision B of Division 104 is valid; otherwise inappropriate to answer [1]

Q4 #Who should pay the costs of the special case?

A The plaintiff should pay the costs of the Commonwealth of the special case. [1]

His appeal was therefore dismissed, and the interim control order upheld.

Related Research Articles

High Court of Australia Highest court in Australia

The High Court of Australia is the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the states and territories, and the ability to interpret the Constitution of Australia and thereby shape the development of federalism in Australia.

Australian constitutional law

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

Kenneth Hayne Australian judge

Kenneth Madison Hayne is a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy.

Judiciary of Australia judiciary; system of courts that interprets and applies the law in Australia

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 doctrine of the separation of powers in Australia divides the institutions of government into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. The legislature makes the laws; the executive put the laws into operation; and the judiciary interprets the laws. The doctrine of the separation of powers is often assumed to be one of the cornerstones of fair government. A strict separation of powers is not always evident in Australia; instead the Australian version of separation of powers combines the basic democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. The issue of separation of powers in Australia has been a contentious one and continues to raise questions about where power lies in the Australian political system.

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(xxxi) of the Constitution of Australia is a subsection of Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia, providing that the Commonwealth has the power to make laws with respect to "the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws." It is both a power and a constitutional guarantee of just compensation for property rights contingent on its exercise.

The criminal law of Australia is the body of law made, recognised and applied in Australia that relates to crime. Most criminal law is made and administered by the individual states and territories of Australia. However, a body of criminal law is also made and administered by the federal government. Criminal law may be differentiated from civil law, which in Australia relates to non-criminal law including civil wrongs, contract law, much of property law and other areas that concern the rights and duties of individuals amongst themselves.

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.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) is an Australian tribunal that conducts independent merits review of administrative decisions made under Commonwealth laws of the Australian Government. The AAT review decisions made by Australian Government ministers, departments and agencies, and in limited circumstances, decisions made by state government and non-government bodies. They also review decisions made under Norfolk Island laws. It is not a court and not part of the Australian court hierarchy; however, its decisions are subject to review by the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The AAT was established by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and started operation in 1976.

Joseph "Jihad Jack" Terrence Thomas is an Australian citizen who undertook pistol, light firearm and demolition training with Al-Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden visited his training camp three times while he was in attendance and he shook hands with him. He was convicted for received funds from Al-Qaeda which was later overturned on appeal. Thomas, commonly referred to in Australian media as "Jihad Jack", was acquitted of providing resources that would assist in a terrorist act before becoming the first Australian to be placed under a control order under the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005.

<i>Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally</i>

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia on 17 June 1999. The case concerned the constitutional validity of cross-vesting of jurisdiction, in particular, the vesting of state companies law jurisdiction in the Federal Court.

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.

Charles Zentai Accused of Holocaust related war crimes

Charles Zentai, was a Hungarian-born resident of Australia accused of a Holocaust-related war crime. He resided in Perth, Australia for many years after living in the American- and French-occupied zones of post-World War II Germany.

Court of Disputed Returns (Australia) Special electoral jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia

The Court of Disputed Returns in Australia is a special jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia. This jurisdiction was initially established by Part XVI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 and is now contained in Part XXII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns hears challenges regarding the validity of federal elections. The jurisdiction is twofold: (1) on a petition to the Court by an individual with a relevant interest or by the Australian Electoral Commission, or (2) on a reference by either house of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Michael Rozenes Australian judge

Michael Rozenes is the former Chief Judge of the County Court of Victoria, an intermediate court in Victoria, Australia. He presided over the County Court for thirteen years, retiring in June 2015.

<i>South Australia v Totani</i> Landmark Australian judgment

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.

In Australia, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity defines the circumstances in which Commonwealth laws can bind the States, and where State laws can bind the Commonwealth. This is distinct from the doctrine of crown immunity, as well as the rule expressed in Section 109 of the Australian Constitution which governs conflicts between Commonwealth and State laws.

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.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Thomas v Mowbray [2007] HCA 33 , (2007) 233 CLR 307.
  2. ↑ Subdivision B of Division 104 of the Criminal Code (Cth).
  3. ↑ Jabbour v Thomas [2006] FMCA 1286 , (2006) 165 A Crim R 32, Federal Magistrates' Court (Australia).
  4. ↑ Thomas convicted under terror laws, The Age, 26 February 2006
  5. ↑ Thomas sentenced under terror laws, News.com.au, 31 March 2006
  6. ↑ The Convert Archived 20 November 2009 at the Wayback Machine , Four Corners, 27 February 2006
  7. ↑ Australian terror convictions quashed [ permanent dead link ] - The Australian. 18 August 2006.
  8. ↑ R v Thomas [2006] VSCA 165 (18 August 2006), Court of Appeal (Vic,Australia).
  9. ↑ Thomas v Mowbray [2007] HCA 33 , (2007) 233 CLR 307 per Gleeson CJ at [1]
  10. ↑ "Curfew order for Jack Thomas". The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax. 28 August 2006. Retrieved 28 August 2006.
  11. ↑ Helen Brown; et al. (28 August 2006). "Transcript: Govt places curfew on Jack Thomas". Lateline. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 29 August 2006.
  12. ↑ ABC staff (28 August 2006). "Thomas family vows to fight control order". ABC online. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 26 September 2006. Retrieved 29 August 2006.
  13. ↑ Tom Allard (29 August 2006). "Jihad Jack wife's terror link". The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax. Retrieved 29 August 2006.
  14. ↑ Mark Dunn (29 August 2006). "Curfew after terrorism acquittal". The Courier-Mail. News Limited. Retrieved 29 August 2006.[ dead link ]
  15. ↑ Thomas v Mowbray [2007] HCA 33 , (2007) 233 CLR 307 per Gummow & Crennan JJ at [37].
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.