Nulyarimma v Thompson

Last updated

Nulyarimma v Thompson
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court Federal Court of Australia
Full case nameWadjularbinna Nulyarimma & Ors v Phillip Thompson; Buzzacott & Ors v Minister for the Environment
Decided2 September 1999
Citation(s)(1999) 96 FCR 153; (1999) 165 ALR 621; [1999] FCA 1192
Case history
Prior action(s)Buzzacott v Hill [1999] FCA 639 and Re Thompson; ex parte Nulyarimma (1999) 136 ACTR 9
Subsequent action(s)none
Case opinions
(2:1) genocide is not incorporated into the Australian common law (per Wilcox and Whitlam JJ)
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingWilcox, Whitlam and Merkel JJ

Nulyarimma v Thompson [1] was an Australian court case decided by the Federal Court of Australia. Two separate cases, Nulyarimma v Thompson and Buzzacott v Minister for the Environment were heard in conjunction. In both cases, members of the Aboriginal community alleged that certain members of the Australian Parliament and government ministers had committed genocide. [2] The case was decided in favour of the Government.

Contents

Background to the case

Nulyarimma v Thompson

In 1997, the Howard government proposed a “ten point plan” [3] to reform the operation of native title in Australia. The plan eventually became the Native Title Amendment 1998. [4] The appellants claimed that the consequences of the “ten point plan” amounted to genocide as it severely restricted and disadvantaged Indigenous Australians' land ownership, livelihood and mental health.

Buzzacott v Minister for the Environment

In April 1999, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, and the Minister for the Environment, Robert Hill, formally refused to pursue the World Heritage listing of Lake Eyre, [5] instead allowing a mining company, BHP Billiton to commence mining operations. The appellant, Kevin Buzzacott, claimed that Downer's failure to pursue World Heritage listing amounted to genocide against his people.

Arguments

Julian Burnside QC and five Senathiraja argued for the appellants that genocide is a part of customary international law, and that even without legislation criminalising genocide within Australia, Australian courts can try individuals accused of genocide. The “ten point plan” constituted genocide because it was a deliberate attempt to destroy the Aboriginal race. The appellants, particularly Ms Nulyarimma, gave evidence to the Court of attempted genocide. Further, Burnside argued that the respondent's failure to pursue the World Heritage listing of Lake Eyre amounted to genocide as BHP Billiton's mining operations threatened the flora, fauna and livelihood of his people by allegedly draining the lake.

H Burmester QC, M Perry and R Bayliss argued on behalf of the respondents that customary international law did not form a part of Australian domestic law and therefore no Australian court has jurisdiction to try individuals for genocide.

Judgment

Whitlam and Wilcox JJ ruled that customary international law did not form a part of Australian law and therefore genocide was not a crime under Australian law in the absence of legislation declaring genocide a crime. [6] Merkel J dissented, finding that customary international law was incorporated into Australian law because of its status as jus cogens, [6] but ultimately found that, because the respondents had no intent to commit genocide, the appellants' claim failed.

Aftermath

In response to Nulyarimma v Thompson, Parliament moved to criminalise genocide by legislation. [7] The Anti-Genocide Bill was a private members bill introduced by the Australian Democrats. [7] In his second reading speech, [8] Senator Brian Greig drew to the attention of parliament the gaps in Australia's criminal law and the need to pass legislation to implement the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which Australia ratified in 1949.

The bill was referred by the Senate to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Reference Committee on 14 October 1999. [7] It was eventually scrapped in favour of the International Criminal Court Bill [9] which adopted the United Nations Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In 2002, the International Criminal Court Act 2002 was passed, declaring genocide a crime.

Related Research Articles

Universal jurisdiction is a legal principle that allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation to the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), or Genocide Convention, is an international treaty that criminalizes genocide and obligates state parties to enforce its prohibition. It was the first legal instrument to codify genocide as a crime, and the first human rights treaty unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, on 9 December 1948. The Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951 and has 152 state parties.

An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.

Blasphemous libel was originally an offence under the common law of England. Today, it is an offence under the common law of Northern Ireland, but has been abolished in England and Wales, and repealed in Canada and New Zealand. It consists of the publication of material which exposes the Christian religion to scurrility, vilification, ridicule, and contempt, with material that must have the tendency to shock and outrage the feelings of Christians. It is a form of criminal libel.

Bosnian genocide Murder of Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats during the Bosnian War

The Bosnian genocide refers to either the Srebrenica massacre or the wider crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing campaign throughout areas controlled by the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) during the Bosnian War of 1992–1995. The events in Srebrenica in 1995 included the killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys, as well as the mass expulsion of another 25,000–30,000 Bosniak civilians by VRS units under the command of General Ratko Mladić.

<i>Dietrich v The Queen</i> Australian legal case

Dietrich v The Queen (Dietrich) was a 1992 decision of the High Court of Australia, which established a de facto constitutional requirement that legal aid be provided to defendants in serious criminal trials. The Court ruled adjournments should be granted on an indefinite basis in serious criminal trials where an accused is unrepresented "through no fault of their own", known as the "fair trial principle" and commonly referred to as the Dietrich principle. Prior to Dietrich it was customary in Australia to force to trial a person who could not afford legal representation.

Australian sedition law was an area of the criminal law of Australia relating to the crime of sedition.

<i>Canada (AG) v Lavell</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada (AG) v Lavell, [1974] S.C.R. 1349, was a landmark 5–4 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act did not violate the respondents' right to "equality before the law" under Section 1 (b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The two respondents, Lavell and Bédard, had alleged that the impugned section was discriminatory under the Canadian Bill of Rights by virtue of the fact that it deprived Indian women of their status for marrying a non-Indian, but not Indian men.

Philippe Sands British/French lawyer, legal academic and author

Philippe Joseph Sands, QC is a British and French lawyer at Matrix Chambers, and Professor of Laws and Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals at University College London. A specialist in international law, he appears as counsel and advocate before many international courts and tribunals, including the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court.

Capital punishment in Australia History of the death penalty in Australia

Capital punishment in Australia was a form of punishment in Australia that has been abolished in all jurisdictions. Queensland abolished the death penalty in 1922. Tasmania did the same in 1968. The Commonwealth abolished the death penalty in 1973, with application also in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Victoria did so in 1975, South Australia in 1976, and Western Australia in 1984. New South Wales abolished the death penalty for murder in 1955, and for all crimes in 1985. In 2010, the Commonwealth Parliament passed legislation prohibiting the re-establishment of capital punishment by any state or territory. Australian law prohibits the extradition or deportation of a prisoner to another jurisdiction if they could be sentenced to death for any crime.

Thoburn v Sunderland City Council is a UK constitutional and administrative law case, concerning the interaction of EU law and an Act of Parliament. It is important for its recognition of the supremacy of EU law and the basis for that recognition. Though the earlier Factortame had also referred to Parliament's voluntary acceptance of the supremacy of EU law, Thoburn put less stress on the jurisprudence of the ECJ and more on the domestic acceptance of such supremacy; Lord Justice Laws suggested there was a hierarchy of "constitutional statutes" that Parliament could only expressly repeal, and so were immune from implied repeal.

Kevin Buzzacott

Kevin Buzzacott, often referred to as Uncle Kev as an Aboriginal elder, is an Indigenous Australian from the Arabunna nation in northern South Australia. He has campaigned widely for cultural recognition, justice and land rights for Aboriginal people, and has initiated and led numerous campaigns including against uranium mining at Olympic Dam, South Australia on Kokatha land, and the exploitation of the water from the Great Artesian Basin.

Legality of Holocaust denial Laws against Holocaust denial

Sixteen European countries and Israel have laws against Holocaust denial, the denial of the systematic genocidal killing of approximately six million Jews in Europe by Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. Many countries also have broader laws that criminalize genocide denial. Among the countries that ban Holocaust denial, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Poland and Romania also ban other elements associated with Nazism, such as the display of Nazi symbols.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution – and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation – the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy, as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law, were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

The hate speech laws in Australia give redress to someone who is the victim of discrimination, vilification, or injury on grounds that differ from one jurisdiction to another. All Australian jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of colour, ethnicity, national origin, or race. Some jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of colour, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender identity, HIV/AIDS status or sexual orientation.

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.

In Malawi a system of Traditional Courts has been used for much of the twentieth century to mediate civil disputes and to prosecute crimes, although for much of the colonial period, their criminal jurisdiction was limited. From 1970, Regional Traditional Courts were created and given jurisdiction over virtually all criminal trials involving Africans of Malawian descent, and any appeals were directed to a National Traditional Court of Appeal rather than the Malawi High Court and from there to the Supreme Court of Appeal, as had been the case with the Local Courts before 1970.

The Law of Tuvalu comprises the legislation voted into law by the Parliament of Tuvalu and statutory instruments that become law; certain Acts passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom ; the common law; and customary law. The land tenure system is largely based on kaitasi.

Legal history of cannabis in Canada Aspect of history

The Cannabis Act (C-45) of June, 2018 paved the way to the legalization of cannabis in Canada on October 17, 2018. Police and prosecution services in all Canadian jurisdictions are currently capable of pursuing criminal charges for cannabis marketing without a licence issued by Health Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the federal Parliament has the power to criminalise the possession of cannabis and that doing so does not infringe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Ontario Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Ontario have, however, held that the absence of a statutory provision for medical marijuana is unconstitutional, and to that extent the federal law is of no force and/or effect if a prescription is obtained. The recreational use of cannabis has been legalized by the federal government, and took effect on October 17, 2018.

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Act 2021 Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Act 2021 is an Act of Parliament in New Zealand which strengthens counter-terrorism laws, including a provision makes the planning of a terrorist attack a criminal offense. It was fast-tracked through Parliament due to the 2021 Auckland supermarket stabbing. The bill is supported by the Labour and National parties but opposed by the ACT, Green, and Māori parties. The bill received royal assent on 4 October 2021.

References

  1. Nulyarimma v Thompson [1999] FCA 1192
  2. Peters, Sean (1999). "The Genocide Case - Nulyarimma v Thompson". Australian International Law Journal: 233.
  3. "Wik 10 Point Plan" (PDF) (Press release). Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 1 May 1997. Retrieved 19 May 2015.
  4. "Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 Explanatory Memorandum". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Parliament of Australia: House of Representatives. 9 March 1998.
  5. "Protecting Lake Eyre Basin Media Release 27 April 1998". Department of Education, Science and Training . 27 April 1998. Archived from the original on 13 April 2001. Retrieved 19 May 2021 via National Library of Australia.
  6. 1 2 Flynn, Martin (2000). "Genocide: It's a Crime Everywhere, But Not in Australia". University of Western Australia Law Review. 29 (1): 61.
  7. 1 2 3 Humanity Diminished: The Crime of Genocide - Inquiry into the Anti-Genocide Bill 1999 (Report). Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. 2000. Retrieved 19 May 2021.
  8. "Anti-Genocide Bill 1999". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Parliament of Australia: Senate. 13 October 1999.
  9. International Criminal Court Bill 2002 (Cth)