• Specific Year
    Any

Gerangelos, Peter --- "The Separation of Powers and Legislative Interference in Pending Cases" [2008] SydLawRw 3; (2008) 30(1) Sydney Law Review 61

[∗] Senior Lecturer in Law, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney. The writer especially thanks Sir Anthony Mason for his commentary on this article and his invaluable comments on reading the article in draft.

[1] See Polyukhovich v Commonwealth [1991] HCA 32; (1991) 172 CLR 501 (‘Polyukhovich’).

[2] See Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Islander Affairs [1996] HCA 18; (1996) 189 CLR 1 at 17.

[3] See Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration (1992) 176 CLR 1 at 27 (‘Chu Kheng Lim’) (Brennan, Deane & Dawson JJ).

[4] See the discussion of the authorities in the judgment of Spigelman CJ in Lodhi v R [2006] NSWCCA 121; (2006) 199 FLR 303 (‘Lodhi’).

[5] Liyanage v R [1967] 1 AC 259 (‘Liyanage’).

[6] BLF v Minister for Industrial Relations (1986) 7 NSWLR 372; BLF v Commonwealth [1986] HCA 47; (1986) 161 CLR 88.

[7] Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration (1992) 176 CLR 1 (‘Chu Kheng Lim’).

[8] Nicholas v R [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 (‘Nicholas’)

[9] For detailed analysis, see the special issue of the Public Law Review: (2002) 13(2) Public Law Review.

[10] Lodhi [2006] NSWCCA 121; (2006) 199 FLR 303.

[11] United States v Schooner Peggy 5 US [1801] USSC 9; (1 Cranch) 103 (1801).

[12] United States v Klein 80 US [1871] USSC 137; (13 Wall) 128 (1871) (‘Klein’).

[13] Klein 80 US [1871] USSC 137; (13 Wall) 128 (1871).

[14] Robertson v Seattle Audubon Society [1992] USSC 38; 503 US 429 (1992).

[15] Plaut v Spendthrift Farm [1995] USSC 32; 514 US 211 (1995).

[16] Miller v French [2000] USSC 55; 530 US 327 (2000).

[17] United States v Sioux Nation of Indians [1980] USSC 149; 448 US 371 (1980).

[18] Schiavo ex rel. Shindler v Schiavo 404 F 3d 1270 (11th Cir, 2005), application for stay of enforcement denied[2005] USSC 2739; , 544 US 957 (2005).

[19] R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia [1956] HCA 10; (1956) 94 CLR 254; affirmed sub nom Attorney-General for Australia v The Queen [1957] AC 288 (‘Boilermakers’).

[20] See Polyukhovich [1991] HCA 32; (1991) 172 CLR 501.

[21] R v Humby; Ex parte Rooney (1973) 129 CLR 231 at 250.

[22] The term was originally used by Gordon C Young, ‘Congressional Regulation of Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Processes: United States v Klein Revisited’ [1981] Wisconsin Law Review 1189 at 1240.

[23] These are the elements contained in the oft-quoted classic definition by Griffith CJ in Huddart, Parker and Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead [1909] HCA 36; (1909) 8 CLR 330 at 357.

[24] In the words of Windeyer J in R v Trade Practices Tribunal; Ex parte Tasmanian Breweries Pty Ltd [1970] HCA 8; (1970) 123 CLR 361 at 394, ‘[t]he concept seems to me to defy, perhaps it were better to say transcend, purely abstract conceptual analysis’.

[25] In the (unanimous) judgment in Precision Data Holdings Ltd v Wills (1991) 173 CLR 167 at 188, reference was made to the ‘difficulty, if not impossibility, of framing a definition of judicial power that is at once exclusive and exhaustive’.

[26] See above n 23. See also Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570 at 608 and R v Trade Practices Tribunal; ex parte Tasmanian Breweries Pty Ltd [1970] HCA 8; (1970) 123 CLR 361 at 374.

[27] Martin H Redish, ‘Federal Judicial Independence: Constitutional and Political Perspectives’ (1995) 46 Mercer Law Review 697 at 699 (emphasis added).

[28] R v Quinn; ex parte Consolidated Foods Corporation [1977] HCA 62; (1977) 138 CLR 1 at 11.

[29] Art III, § 1 of the United States Constitution provides: ‘The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish’.

[30] United States v Schooner Peggy 5 US [1801] USSC 9; (1 Cranch) 103 (1801).

[31] Id at 110 (emphasis added).

[32] Ibid.

[33] For subsequent applications of the Changed Law Rule, see United States v Preston 28 US [1830] USSC 51; (3 Peters) 57 at 66–7 (1830) and Fairfax’s Devisee v Hunter's Lessee 11 US [1812] USSC 17; (7 Cranch) 603 at 612 (1813).

[34] Thomas M Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest Upon the States of the American Union (7th ed, 1903) at 137 (originally published in 1868) (emphasis added).

[35] W Harrison Moore, The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (2nd ed, 1910) at 322 (emphasis added).

[36] A Inglis Clark, Studies in Australian Constitutional Law (1st ed, 1901) at 50 (emphasis added).

[37] Ibid (emphasis added).

[38] Id at 39 (emphasis added).

[39] John Quick & Robert R Garran, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (1901) at 721.

[40] Chu Kheng Lim (1992) 176 CLR 1.

[41] Liyanage [1967] 1 AC 259.

[42] As a preliminary step, the Privy Council held that the separation of powers was incorporated into the Constitution of Ceylon: id at 283 ff, especially from 287.

[43] Id at 289–90.

[44] Id at 290.

[45] Ibid (emphasis added).

[46] Ibid.

[47] Patrick H Lane, Lane’s Commentary on The Australian Constitution (2nd ed, 1997) at 483.

[48] Liyanage [1967] 1 AC 259 at 290.

[49] Liyanage [1967] 1 AC 259 at 290.

[50] Liyanage [1967] 1 AC 259 at 290 (emphasis added).

[51] Klein 80 US [1871] USSC 137; (13 Wall) 128 (1871).

[52] United States v Padelford 76 US [1869] USSC 160; (9 Wall) 531 (1870).

[53] Act of July 12, 1870, 16 Stat 230 at 235.

[54] Klein 80 US [1871] USSC 137; (13 Wall) 128 at 129 (1871).

[55] Klein 80 US [1871] USSC 137; (13 Wall) 128 at 147. There was some debate amongst constitutional scholars in the United States whether the ratio of Klein extended beyond the purely jurisdictional point to be authority also for the direction principle. That uncertainty was largely resolved in a seminal article on Klein in 1953 by Professor Henry Hart in favour of the proposition that it did: Henry M Hart, ‘The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic’ (1953) 66 Harvard Law Review 1362. It is this view which has prevailed in both judicial exegesis and constitutional scholarship.

[56] Klein 80 US [1871] USSC 137; (13 Wall) 128 at 147 (emphasis added).

[57] Klein 80 US [1871] USSC 137; (13 Wall) 128 at 146 (emphasis added).

[58] Klein 80 US [1871] USSC 137; (13 Wall) 128 at 146 (emphasis added).

[59] Klein 80 US [1871] USSC 137; (13 Wall) 128 at 145.

[60] Klein 80 US [1871] USSC 137; (13 Wall) 128 at 129 (emphasis added).

[61] Klein 80 US [1871] USSC 137; (13 Wall) 128 at 145–6.

[62] Klein 80 US [1871] USSC 137; (13 Wall) 128 at147.

[63] BLF v Commonwealth [1986] HCA 47; (1986) 161 CLR 88.

[64] Builders Labourers’ Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Act 1986 (Cth) s 3.

[65] BLF v Commonwealth [1986] HCA 47; (1986) 161 CLR 88 at 94.

[66] Gibbs CJ, Mason, Brennan, Deane, & Dawson JJ.

[67] BLF v Commonwealth [1986] HCA 47; (1986) 161 CLR 88 at 96.

[68] BLF v Commonwealth [1986] HCA 47; (1986) 161 CLR 88 at 96.

[69] BLF v Minister for Industrial Relations (1986) 7 NSWLR 372.

[70] Following Clyne v East (1967) 68 SR (NSW) 385; see also Gilbertson v South Australia (1976) 15 SASR 66 at 101 and Nicholas v Western Australia [1972] WAR 168 at 175.

[71] Emphasis added.

[72] Emphasis added.

[73] BLF v Minister for Industrial Relations (1986) 7 NSWLR 372 at 375 and 387 respectively.

[74] BLF v Minister for Industrial Relations (1986) 7 NSWLR 372 at 376.

[75] BLF v Minister for Industrial Relations (1986) 7 NSWLR 372 at 378.

[76] BLF v Minister for Industrial Relations (1986) 7 NSWLR 372 at 378 (emphasis added).

[77] BLF v Minister for Industrial Relations (1986) 7 NSWLR 372 at 378 and 394.

[78] BLF v Minister for Industrial Relations (1986) 7 NSWLR 372 at 379.

[79] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173. There are other cases which touch on this issue, but they do not add to the present discussion. See, eg, H A Bachrach Pty Ltd v Queensland [1998] HCA 54; (1998) 195 CLR 547 which considered the direction principle although holding that it had not been breached.

[80] Ridgeway v R (1995) 184 CLR 19 (‘Ridgeway’)

[81] See Ridgeway (1995) 184 CLR 19 at 31–2, in the joint judgment of Mason CJ, Deane & Dawson JJ, with whom Brennan & Toohey JJ agreed on this point.

[82] See the Explanatory Memorandum to the Crimes Amendment (Controlled Operations) Bill 1996, and Second Reading Speech to the Crimes Amendment (Controlled Operations) Bill 1996, House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 20 June 1996, at 2510 ff. See also in relation to an earlier Bill to the same effect, Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Crimes Amendment (Controlled Operations) Bill 1995 (1995).

[83] Section 15G.

[84] This being clearly stated in the Explanatory Memorandum to the amending Act.

[85] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 254 [201].

[86] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 254 [201].

[87] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 256 [201].

[88] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 256 [201].

[89] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 256 [201].

[90] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 256 [201].

[91] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 256 [201].

[92] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 254 [201].

[93] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 257 [201]

[94] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 256 [201].

[95] See Chu Kheng Lim (1992) 176 CLR 1 at 26–9.

[96] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 257 [201].

[97] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 257 [201]. See also Chu Kheng Lim (1992) 176 CLR 1 at 27; and Liyanage [1967] 1 AC 259 at 280–90.

[98] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 259 [201].

[99] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 259 [201] ff.

[100] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 260 [201].

[101] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 244 [183] ff. He examined very carefully in this regard the parliamentary debates, statements of the relevant Minister, the explanatory memorandum to the Bill, and other background materials relating to it.

[102] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 249 [197].

[103] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 251 [197] (emphasis in original). Relevant materials being Explanatory Memorandum, Crimes Amendment (Controlled Operations) Bill 1996.

[104] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 263 [206].

[105] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 263 [206].

[106] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 263 [206].

[107] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 263 [206].

[108] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 264 [208] ff.

[109] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 215 [96].

[110]vNicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 216 [98] ff.

[111] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 216 [101].

[112] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 217–18 [104].

[113] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 220 [111].

[114] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 220 [112].

[115] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 221 [113], quoting Lane, above n 47 at 484.

[116] Lane, above n 47 at 484.

[117] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 222 [115] (emphasis in original).

[118] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 224 [120].

[119] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 224 [121].

[120] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 225 [122].

[121] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at225 [123].

[122] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 226 [126].

[123] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 225–26 [125].

[124] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 185 [13] ff.

[125] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 188–91 [21]–[26].

[126] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 193 [31] ff.

[127] Polyukhovich [1991] HCA 32; (1991) 172 CLR 501 at 689.

[128] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 202 [53] (emphasis added).

[129] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 202 [53] (emphasis added).

[130] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 202 [53] (emphasis added).

[131] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 274 [238].

[132] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 193 [28].

[133] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 193 [28].

[134] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 193 [28].

[135] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 203 [57].

[136] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 203 [57].

[137] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 200 [48].

[138] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 272 [231] (emphasis added).

[139] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 277 [249].

[140] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 277 [249].

[141] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at278 [252].

[142] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 207 [70].

[143] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 207 [70].

[144] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 208 [71].

[145] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 208 [74].

[146] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 232 [144].

[147] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 231 [142] ff.

[148] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 232 [145].

[149] Nicholas [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 233 [147]–[148].

[150] Klein 80 US [1871] USSC 137; (13 Wall) 128, above n 55 and accompanying text.

[151] See Young, above n 22.

[152] Seattle Audubon Society v Robertson 914 F 2d 1311 (9th Cir, 1990).

[153] 914 F 2d 1311 (9th Cir, 1990) at 1315.

[154] Robertson v Seattle Audubon Society [1992] USSC 38; 503 US 429 (1992).

[155] The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act 1990 (US).

[156] 914 F 2d 1311 at 1315 (9th Cir, 1990).

[157] See 914 F 2d 1311 at 1312 for detailed background to the enactment.

[158] 914 F 2d 1311 at 1317.

[159] Robertson v Seattle Audubon Society [1992] USSC 38; 503 US 429 (1992). The Opinion of the (unanimous) Court was delivered by Thomas J.

[160] For example, see id at 436.

[161] Id at 437–8.

[162] Ibid.

[163] Ibid.

[164] Id at 440.

[165] Id at 439–40.

[166] Id at 439.

[167] Amy D Ronner, ‘Judicial Self-Demise: The Test of When Congress Impermissibly Intrudes on Judicial Power After Robertson v Seattle Audubon Society and the Federal Appellate Courts’ Rejection of the Separation of Powers Challenges to the New Section of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934’ (1993) 35 Arizona Law Review 1037 at 1054.

[168] Id at 1054–5.

[169] See in particular Ronner, above n 167; and Lloyd C Anderson, ‘Congressional Control over the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts: A New Threat to James Madison’s Compromise’ (2000) 39 Brandeis Law Journal 417 at 420.

[170] [1992] USSC 38; 503 US 429 at 441 (emphasis added).

[171] Above n22; and see Martin H Redish and Christopher R Pudelski, ‘Legislative Deception, Separation of Powers, and the Democratic Process: Harnessing the Political Theory of United States v. Klein(2006) Northwestern University Law Review 437.

[172] Gray v First Winthrop Corp [1993] USCA9 1076; 989 F 2d 1564 (9th Cir, 1993) (‘Gray’).

[173] Gray [1993] USCA9 1076; 989 F 2d 1564 (9th Cir, 1993) at 1569–70 (emphasis added).

[174] Gray [1993] USCA9 1076; 989 F 2d 1564 (9th Cir, 1993) at 1570 (emphasis added).

[175] Robertson, Plaut v Spendthrift Farm Inc [1995] USSC 32; 514 US 211 (1995).

[176] Miller v French [2000] USSC 55; 530 US 327 (2000).

[177] Peter A Gerangelos, ‘The Decisional Independence of Chapter III Courts and Constitutional Limitations on Legislative Power: Notes From the United States’ (2005) 33 Federal Law Review 391.

[178] Ibid.

[179] The most prominent example being the decision of the Supreme Court, delivered by Scalia J, in Plaut v Spendthrift Farm [1995] USSC 32; 514 US 211 (1995) with respect to the absolute protection afforded final judgments by the separation of powers.

[180] For example, the majority judgments in Nicholas.

[181] Ronner, above n 167 at 1071.

[182] Ibid.

[183] Chu Kheng Lim (1992) 176 CLR 1.

[184] See above n 9.

[185] See Peter A Gerangelos, ‘The Separation of Powers and Legislative Interferences with Judicial Functions: A Comparative Analysis’ (PhD Dissertation, University of New South Wales, 2004) at 74 ff.

[186] Ibid.

[187] See Baker v R [2004] HCA 45; (2004) 223 CLR 513 at 534 (McHugh, Gummow, Hayne & Heydon JJ).

Download

No downloadable files available