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.

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 in Australia. 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 the ability to interpret the Constitution of Australia and thereby shape the development of federalism in Australia.

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]

September 11 attacks Attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001

The September 11 attacks were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda against the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,977 people, injured over 6,000 others, and caused at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage. Additional people have died of 9/11-related cancer and respiratory diseases in the months and years following the attacks.

United States Federal republic in North America

The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States or America, is a country comprising 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions. At 3.8 million square miles, the United States is the world's third or fourth largest country by total area and is slightly smaller than the entire continent of Europe. With a population of over 327 million people, the U.S. is the third most populous country. The capital is Washington, D.C., and the most populous city is New York City. Most of the country is located contiguously in North America between Canada and Mexico.

Supreme Court of Victoria Superior court of the state of Victoria, Australia

The Supreme Court of Victoria is the superior court for the State of Victoria, Australia. It was founded in 1852, and is a superior court of common law and equity, with unlimited jurisdiction within the state. Those courts lying below it include the County Court of Victoria and the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which is not a court, serves a judicial function. Above it lies the High Court of Australia. This places it around the middle of the Australian court hierarchy. The building itself is on the Victorian Heritage Register.

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:

Curfew

A curfew is an order specifying a time during which certain regulations apply. Typically it refers to the time when individuals are required to return to and stay in their homes. Such an order may be issued by public authorities but also by the head of a household to those living in the household. For instance, an au pair is typically given a curfew, which regulates when they must return to the host family's home in the evening.

Australian Federal Police federal police agency of the Commonwealth of Australia

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) is the national and principal federal law enforcement agency of the Australian Government with the unique role of investigating crime and to protect the national security of the Commonwealth of Australia. The AFP is an independent agency of the Department of Home Affairs and is responsible to the Minister for Home Affairs and accountable to the Parliament of Australia. Since October 2014 the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police has been Andrew Colvin.

Osama bin Laden Co-founder of al-Qaeda

Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden, also rendered Usama bin Ladin, was a founder of the pan-Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda. He was a Saudi Arabian citizen until 1994, a member of the wealthy bin Laden family, and an ethnic Yemeni Kindite.

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.

New South Wales State of Australia

New South Wales is a state on the east coast of Australia. It borders Queensland to the north, Victoria to the south, and South Australia to the west. Its coast borders the Tasman Sea to the east. The Australian Capital Territory is an enclave within the state. New South Wales' state capital is Sydney, which is also Australia's most populous city. In March 2019, the population of New South Wales was over 8 million, making it Australia's most populous state. Just under two-thirds of the state's population, 5.1 million, live in the Greater Sydney area. Inhabitants of New South Wales are referred to as New South Welshmen.

South Australia State of Australia

South Australia is a state in the southern central part of Australia. It covers some of the most arid parts of the country. With a total land area of 983,482 square kilometres (379,725 sq mi), it is the fourth-largest of Australia's states and territories by area, and fifth largest by population. It has a total of 1.7 million people, and its population is the second most highly centralised in Australia, after Western Australia, with more than 77 percent of South Australians living in the capital, Adelaide, or its environs. Other population centres in the state are relatively small; Mount Gambier, the second largest centre, has a population of 28,684.

Western Australia State in Australia

Western Australia is a state occupying the entire western third of Australia. It is bounded by the Indian Ocean to the north and west, and the Southern Ocean to the south, the Northern Territory to the north-east, and South Australia to the south-east. Western Australia is Australia's largest state, with a total land area of 2,529,875 square kilometres, and the second-largest country subdivision in the world, surpassed only by Russia's Sakha Republic. The state has about 2.6 million inhabitants – around 11 percent of the national total – of whom the vast majority live in the south-west corner, 79 per cent of the population living in the Perth area, leaving the remainder of the state sparsely populated.

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.<ref>Thomas v Mowray [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

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.

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.

Owen Dixon Australian judge and diplomat

Sir Owen Dixon was an Australian judge and diplomat who served as the sixth Chief Justice of Australia. A judge of the High Court for thirty-five years, Dixon was one of the leading jurists in the English-speaking world and is widely regarded as Australia's greatest-ever jurist.

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.

Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia deals with the legislative inconsistency between federal and state laws and declares that valid federal laws override inconsistent State laws, to the extent of the inconsistency. Section 109 is analogous to the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution and the Paramountcy doctrine in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence, and the jurisprudence in one jurisdictions is considered persuasive in the others.

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(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.

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.

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.

Court of Disputed Returns (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. His Honour presided over the County Court for thirteen years, retiring in June 2015.

<i>Rowe v Electoral Commissioner</i>

Rowe v Electoral Commissioner is a High Court of Australia case dealing with the requirement of the Australian Constitution that members of Parliament be "directly chosen by the people". The High Court held that Commonwealth legislation that sought to restrict the time in which a person may seek to enroll in an election or alter their enrolment details after the writs for an election have been issued was invalid.

<i>South Australia v Totani</i>

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.

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". 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". 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].