Year 10 Civics and Citizenship
High Court Cases
CEFA. (2016). The role of the High Court in Australian democracy. Retrieved from http://www.cefa.org.au/ccf/role-high-court-australian-democracy
Parliamentary Education Office. (n.d.). The Constitution and the High Court. Retrieved from http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/closer-look/the-australian-constitution/the-constitution-and-the-high-court.html
Wimble Don. (2017, November 8). Ratio decidendi & obiter dicta [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hVgnXqqDio
Mabo and Others v Queensland (No. 2) (“Mabo Case”) (1992) 175 CLR 1, [1992] HCA 23
“Mabo v Queensland (No 2) was responsible for negating the 17th century doctrine of terra nullius and inserting native title into Australian law. By doing so, it not only rewrote the bedrock of national land law, but also acknowledged Indigenous Australians as the original inhabitants of Australia.
The case, which spanned over 10 years, revolved around the Meriam People’s campaign to take legal ownership of their lands on the island of Mer in the Torres Strait. Despite staunch opposition from the Queensland Government and the death of two of the original five claimants before the case’s conclusion, the High Court inevitably ruled 6:1 in favour of the Meriam People. This in turn led to the Native Title Act in 1993, which allowed Indigenous people across Australia to claim traditional rights to unalienated land.
While Mabo v Queensland (No 2) was significant for so many reasons, it ultimately altered the very law on which this land mass was colonised.” (The College of Law, 2014)
Use your key words to search the Library Catalogue as there is a range of non-fiction print items available on this case.
Other suggested resources:
AIATSIS. (n.d.). Mabo Case. Retrieved from https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/articles/mabo-case
Aldous, J., Lapsanas, K., Blakston, V., & Shaw, G. (2010). Making and breaking the law (pp.185-187). South Yarra: VCTA.
Australian Law Reform Commission. (2015). Native title in its historical context. Retrieved from https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/native-title-its–historical-context
High Court Australia. (1992). Mabo v Queensland [No 2] [1992] HCA 23. Retrieved from http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showbyHandle/1/8925
*Primary Source
Museum of Australian Democracy. (n.d.). Documenting a democracy: Mabo v Queensland No. 2 1992 (Cth). Retrieved from https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-did-33.html
Snodger Media. (n.d.). Legal Briefs: Episode 4 – Mabo. Retrieved from http://legalbriefs.com.au/ep-4-mabo/
Willmott, J. (2011). Power & governance: politics and law in Australia. (2nd ed). Perth, W.A: Politics Law Publishing.
Commonwealth v Tasmania (“Tasmanian Dam case”) [1983] HCA 21; (1983) 158 CLR 1 (1 July 1983)
“Known far and wide as simply “the Tasmanian Dam Case”, this case is renowned as equal parts constitutional landmark and environmental victory. The case, which saw the Federal and Tasmanian governments clashing heads in the High Court of Australia, involved the proposed construction of a hydroelectric dam on the World Heritage-listed Gordon River in south-west Tasmania. While the Tasmanian Government vied for its legal right to construct the dam, the Federal Government set out to oppose it, citing – among other things – Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
With the passing of the historic World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983, the Federal Government won a 4:3 majority ruling in the High Court, thereby setting a new legal precedent and preserving a slice of Australian wilderness in one fell swoop.” (The College of Law, 2014)
Aldous, J., Lapsanas, K., Blakston, V., & Shaw, G. (2013). Making and breaking the law. South Yarra: Macmillan Education Australia.
Attacks in dam case continue. (1983, June 4). The Canberra Times. p. 3. Retrieved from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article131847484
Cain joins Federal dam case. (1983, April 22). The Canberra Times, p. 3. Retrieved from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article116380330
Carrick, D. (2013). Wilderness case that changed course of federal power [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/tasmanian-dams-30-years/4793690
This radio broadcast will provide information on the context of the case.
Chris McGrath. (2015, May 13). The story of the Tasmanian Dam case [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3reEIqyR64
Clarke, M. (2013, July 24). Remembering the Tasmanian dams case [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2013/07/24/clark-tasmanian-dam/
Engage Wiki. (2015, July 15). VCE Legal Studies [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x0hO9UPNS8
High Court of Australia. (1983). Commonwealth v Tasmania [1983] HCA 21. Retrieved from http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showbyHandle/1/11578
* Primary Source
High Court to give decision in Franklin dam case today. (1983, July 1). The Canberra Times, p. 6. Retrieved from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article116415565
King, S. (2016). Power, Accountability and Rights. South Perth, WA: Political and Legal Educators Association of Western Australia.
McGrath, C. (n.d.). Tasmanian dam case. Retrieved from http://envlaw.com.au/tasmanian-dam-case/
The University of Melbourne. (n.d.). Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983). Retrieved from http://www.saulwick.info/biogs/E000444b.htm
Willmott, J. (2011). Power & governance: Politics and law in Australia. Perth, W.A: Politics Law Publishing.
Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57
“Olaf Dietrich was an unlikely champion of human rights. Charged with smuggling heroin in condoms, he was at trial refused legal aid unless he pled guilty. In his High Court appeal, Dietrich’s QC turned to the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), and common law tradition to justify his right to a fair trial – which he felt ought to be provided at the expense of the state, given the seriousness of his crimes. Despite the fact that Dietrich went on to commit three armed robberies, his case remains good law for the right to a fair trial in Australia, with some suggesting this right is implicit in our constitution.” (The College of Law, 2014)
Aldous, J., Lapsanas, K., Blakston, V., & Shaw, G. (2010). Making and breaking the law (pp.291-293). South Yarra: VCTA
High Court of Australia. (1992). Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57. Retrieved from http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showbyHandle/1/233453
* Primary Source
Kift, S. (1997). The Dietrich Dilemma. QUT Law Review, 13, 211-234. Retrieved from https://lr.law.qut.edu.au/article/view/444/431
Parliament of Australia. (n.d.). Chapter 4 – Implications of the Dietrich decision. Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/1996-99/legalaid/report/c07
Rule of Law Institute of Australia. (n.d.). Dietrich v The Queen. Retrieved from http://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/education/case-studies/access-justice/dietrich-v-the-queen/
Willmott, J. (2011). Power & governance: politics and law in Australia (pp. 206-207). (2nd ed). Perth, W.A: Politics Law Publishing.
The Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory [2013] HCA 55
“The High Court held unanimously that the whole of the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 (ACT) (the ACT Act) was inconsistent with the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) (the Marriage Act) and was therefore of no effect” (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2013).
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2013). Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory [2013] HCA 55. Retrieved from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/publications/commonwealth-v-australian-capital-territory-2013-hca-55
Twomey, A. (2013, December 12). ACT law delivers neither marriage nor equality: the High Court’s verdict. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/act-law-delivers-neither-marriage-nor-equality-the-high-courts-verdict-21406
Australasian Legal Information Institute. (2013, December 12). The Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory [2013] HCA 55. Retrieved from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/55.html
*Primary Source
Equal rights trust. (2013). Australian High Court Declares Regional Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act As Of No Effect. Retrieved from http://www.equalrightstrust.org/news/australian-high-court-declares-regional-marriage-equality-same-sex-act-no-effect