Tuckiar v The King

Last updated

Tuckiar v The King
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided8 November 1934
Citation(s) [1934] HCA 49, (1934) 52  CLR  335
Court membership
Judges sitting

Tuckiar v The King is a landmark 1934 judgment of the High Court of Australia. The matter examined the behaviour of the judge and lawyers in the trial of Yolngu man Dhakiyarr (Tuckiar) Wirrpanda in the Northern Territory Supreme Court a year earlier for one of the Caledon Bay murders, and overturned the judgment which had found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to death.

Contents

The case was decided on 8 November 1934, after a two-day hearing on 29–30 October 1934. At the time, the original case had stirred much controversy and caused a debate about the appropriateness of the Australian justice system for Indigenous Australians. It has become a case study in, and raises many issues for, legal ethics regarding instructions by judges and the behaviour of defence counsel, as well as the treatment of Indigenous people before the Australian justice system.

Background

Dhakiyarr Wirrpanda, a Yolngu Aboriginal man living a traditional life, [1] was sentenced to death in the Northern Territory Supreme Court for the murder by spearing of a police constable, Albert McColl, on Woodah Island, an island off Arnhem Land on the northern coast of Australia. McColl had gone to Arnhem Land with a police party to apprehend some Aboriginal people thought to have killed the crew of a Japanese pearling lugger. It emerged that McColl had been handcuffed to Djappari, a wife of Dhakiyarr, and some other women. [2]

The trial lasted only one day, with a guilty verdict returned by the 12-person jury [2] after what was later deemed to be misdirection by Judge Wells. Defence arguments of self-defence or provocation were not put to the jury. [3] The episode surrounding these killings and that of another two men were referred to in the press as the Caledon Bay murders. [4]

Appeal

The case which became known as Tuckiar v. the King was the appeal in the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. [3] The case was heard over two days, 29–30 October 1934, in Melbourne [2] after some protest and lobbying by people including the Anglican clergyman A. P. Elkin. [5] [6]

The High Court unanimously found that there had been a miscarriage of justice, and that the trial judgment should be set aside.

On the way home from his seven-month incarceration in Fannie Bay Gaol, Dhakiyarr went missing, never to be seen again. [2]

Legacy

In an act of reconciliation, 38 descendants of McColl and around 200 descendants of Dhakiyarr attended a 2003 ceremony [7] in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in Darwin. This was chronicled in the 2004 film Dhakiyarr vs the King, by Tom Murray and Allan Collins, [8] which went on to win the NSW Premier's History Award, was nominated for the Grand Jury Prize in the 2005 Sundance Film Festival [9] and won the Rouben Mamoulian Award in the Sydney Film Festival. [10]

The quote "Our system of administering justice necessarily imposes upon those who practise advocacy duties which have no analogies, and the system cannot dispense with their strict observance." from the case was used in the AB v CD; EF v CD court case concerning the use of the criminal barrister Nicola Gobbo as a secret informant by the Victorian Police. [11] [12]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Australia</span> Apex court of Australia

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mary Gaudron</span> 20th and 21st-century Australian judge

Mary Genevieve Gaudron, is an Australian lawyer and judge, who was the first female Justice of the High Court of Australia. She was the Solicitor-General of New South Wales from 1981 until 1987 before her appointment to the High Court. After her retirement in 2002, she joined the International Labour Organization, serving as the President of its Administrative Tribunal from 2011 until 2014.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ian Callinan</span> Former Justice of the High Court of Australia

Ian David Francis Callinan AC KC is a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy.

The system of tort law in Australia is broadly similar to that in other common law countries. However, some divergences in approach have occurred as its independent legal system has developed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Toohey (judge)</span> Former justice of the High Court of Australia (1930–2015)

John Leslie Toohey, AC, QC was an Australian judge who was a Justice of the High Court of Australia from 1987 to 1998.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Owen Dixon</span> Australian judge and diplomat (1886–1972)

Sir Owen Dixon was an Australian judge and diplomat who served as the sixth Chief Justice of Australia. Many consider him to be Australia's most prominent jurist.

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.

<i>Dietrich v The Queen</i> 1992 Australian High Court legal aid case

Dietrich v The Queen is a 1992 High Court of Australia constitutional case which established a person accused of serious criminal charges must be granted an adjournment until appropriate legal representation is provided if they are unrepresented through no fault of their own and proceeding would result in the trial being unfair.

The separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion.

The Caledon Bay crisis refers to a series of killings at Caledon Bay in the Northern Territory of Australia during 1932–34, referred to in the press of the day as Caledon Bay murder(s). Five Japanese trepang fishers were killed by Aboriginal Australians of the Yolngu people. A police officer investigating the deaths, Albert McColl, was subsequently killed. Shortly afterwards, two white men went missing on Woodah Island (with one body found later). With some of the white community alarmed by these events, a punitive expedition was proposed by Northern Territory Police to "teach the blacks a lesson".

Section 51(xxxi) is a subclause of section 51 of the Constitution of Australia. It empowers the Commonwealth to make laws regarding the acquisition of property, but stipulates that such acquisitions must be on just (fair) terms. The terms is sometimes referred to in shorthand as the 'just terms' provision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Albert Piddington</span> Australian politician

Albert Bathurst Piddington KC was an Australian lawyer, politician and judge. He was a member of the High Court of Australia for one month in 1913, making him the shortest-serving judge in the court's history.

<i>Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd</i> First Australian Aboriginal land rights case, heard in the NT Supreme Court in 1971

Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, also known as the Gove land rights case because its subject was land known as the Gove Peninsula in the Northern Territory, was the first litigation on native title in Australia, and the first significant legal case for Aboriginal land rights in Australia, decided on 27 April 1971.

The persona designata doctrine is a doctrine in law, particularly in Canadian and Australian constitutional law which states that, although it is generally impermissible for a federal judge to exercise non-judicial power, it is permissible for a judge to do so if the power has been conferred on the judge personally, as opposed to powers having been conferred on the court. The doctrine in the more general sense has been recognised throughout the common law countries. Persona designata, according to Black's Law Dictionary, means "A person considered as an individual rather than as a member of a class"; thus it may be a person specifically named or identified in a lawsuit, as opposed to the one belonging to an identified category or group. While it has its origin in Montesquieu's doctrine of the separation of powers, it can be traced back as far as Aristotle's Politics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Disputed Returns (Australia)</span> 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. 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. 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. Challenges regarding the validity of State elections are heard by the Supreme Court of that State as the State's Court of Disputed Returns.

<i>Harriton v Stephens</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Harriton v Stephens, was a decision of the High Court of Australia handed down on 9 May 2006, in which the court dismissed a "wrongful life" claim brought by a disabled woman seeking the right to compensation for being born after negligent medical advice that resulted in her mother's pregnancy not being terminated.

Thomas Alexander Wells was a judge of the Northern Territory Supreme Court in Darwin, Australia. He was known for having misdirected the jury in a high-profile case in 1934, which was later overturned in an appeal in the High Court of Australia known as Tuckiar v The King.

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.

Section 122 of the Constitution of Australia deals with matters relating to the governance of Australian territories. It gives the Commonwealth Parliament complete legislative power over the territories. This power is called the territories power. The extent and terms of the representation of the territories in the House of Representatives and the Senate are also stated as being at the discretion of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Mulkun Wirrpanda was an Indigenous Australian community leader and artist from Yirrkala. Coming from a family of artists, her work focuses on botany surrounding her homelands.

References

  1. Producer: Dr Tom Murray (7 June 2013). "Tuckier (Dhakiyarr) v the King and Territory". Hindsight. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Radio National.
  2. 1 2 3 4 "Dhakiyarr Wirrpanda: Timeline". Uncommon lives. Archived from the original on 6 February 2006.
  3. 1 2 Tuckiar v The King [1934] HCA 49 , (1934) 52 CLR 335 (8 November 1934), High Court (Australia).
  4. Trove: List of newspaper articles referring to Caledon Bay murder/s
  5. Ted Egan (1996) Justice All Their Own. Melbourne University Press.
  6. "About the making of the film: Dhakiyarr vs the King". Screen Australia. Archived from the original on 4 March 2014. Retrieved 8 July 2019.
  7. "Invitation to a ceremony in memory of Dhakiyarr". Multicultural Council of the NT Newsletter. Archived from the original on 17 January 2006. Retrieved 9 November 2005.
  8. "Dhakiyarr vs the King". ABC. Moving history: 60 years of Film Australia. Archived from the original on 6 September 2014. Retrieved 21 August 2014.
  9. 2005 Sundance Film Festival
  10. Tuckiar v The King at IMDb OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg
  11. AB v CD [2018] HCA 58
  12. Kunc, Francois (1 October 2019). "Lawyer X - the first conviction overturned". Australian Law Journal . 93 (10): 808. eISSN   0004-9611 . Retrieved 20 April 2022.

Further reading

News reports of the day

Other