Talk:High Court of Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former good articleHigh Court of Australia was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 17, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 23, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Eras of the High Court

  • Federation to 1920 - states' jurisdictions upheld
  • 1920-1940 - Expansion of Commonwealth powers
  • 1940-1980 - Status quo upheld
  • 1980 - present - Judicial activism?

Would this breakdown of the court's history be too POV? Kewpid 01:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eras are generally termed in name of the Cief Justice of the time. I you can find some sources on eras go ahead and write a section on it. Xtra 11:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where has the list of judges gone? Also, Whitlam described Fraser as "Kerr's cur", not Barwick. Xtra 01:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, forgot to fix that Barwick thing in my draft. The current list, and the list of the first three, are back in. There's a nice diagram I did over at
talk) 11:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
yes, good work. Xtra 11:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, wonderful rewrite. I'd just like to make a few suggestions though.

  • Would it be possible to create a History of the High Court of Australia article? The material is excellent, but I think its sheer size (particularly the information preceding the court's creation) tends to swamp the rest of the article.
  • What would people think about implementing the table from Supreme Court of the United States for the composition of the current court?
  • I think a seperate qualifications section, outlining what has generally been required of judicial appointments could be quite helpful, as would branching the information about the building itself off to a seperate section, as with the SCOTUS article
  • Sections for procedure, checks and balances and citations, per the SCOTUS article, could be worthwhile additions in the future.
  • While the history section is far better than that in the SCOTUS article, it'd be nice to see some mention of the evolution of the court and its decisions over time; for example, there is no mention of the Mason court.

Anyway, regardless of any of these quibbles, it's a fantastic and much needed rewrite; kudos to you, bainer. :) Ambi 12:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was my next job ;) I was thinking of creating a new top-level section, possibly called "Jurisprudence", which would contain the court's legal history (as opposed to its institutional history). That could cover the various eras (as suggested above). Haven't yet decided whether to do it chronologically (Griffith court, Latham court, Dixon court etc) or thematically. We could also do with a "procedure" section like SCOTUS has. --
talk) 12:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
I just copied the table over from
talk) 13:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Excellent. I also like the jurisprudence idea, as it would substantially clarify things (by not mixing up the two). :) Ambi 00:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I vote for chronologically. I think it is a demonstrable and recognised phenomenon that the Court has had varying characteristics during the eras of at least the long term Chief Justices, eg Gleeson, Mason, Barwick, Latham.

Bank Nationalization

I don't think that individual rulings belong in the history section, which should focus on the history of the court itself. I'd support a 'landmark rulings' section, but we don't have one at the moment (List of High Court of Australia cases is used for this purpose though). - ҉Randwicked҉ 09:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a List of High Court of Australia cases, perhaps this could be the solution. Xtra 10:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I rewrote this a few months ago I did plan to have a legal history of the court in a separate section, to go alongside the "history" section (which is the history of the court as an institution). It's proving to be much more difficult than I thought, however, so if you'd like to help you're welcome. --
talk) 11:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The bank nationalisation case was a particularly important one however. Tabletop 12:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yep things like bank natinoalisation and engineers should be on the high court page. they're not the same as other (more mundane) cases. --Sumple (Talk) 00:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA promotion

I made one small format to clear an image before the next section started. Other than that it's well written congratulations on your efforts. Suggest that when someone has the time and is willing, consideration should be given to FA status. Gnangarra 15:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to CLRs

There are a bunch of decisions referred to in this article - has anyone thought about adding citations (say, in the footnotes)? Sambo 15:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've belatedly acted on this suggestion; all mentions of cases in the article are now footnoted with a citation to the case on AustLII. --
talk) 14:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Jurisprudence

Ok, finally got around to finishing the other major part of my rewrite, the "Jurisprudence" section, which is basically intended to be a summary of major cases decided by each court. I've decided to split it up by reference to Chief Justices, which seems a fairly common way to do it. We already have a stub on the

Mason court
, I imagine that in time, each court will have its own article and the section in this article will be a very brief summary.

The other issue is that now the article is 64kb long, so we may want to consider breaking it off into smaller articles. Personally I like having it all in one, especially since it's got a comprehensively organised table of contents. --

talk) 08:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I think that the article has an apropriate ammount of information, however the original jurisdiction section needs to be re-written to not just be a verbatim repetition of the constitution. Otherwise, this article is top class and shoud be put up for featured soon. Xtra 11:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant work, as always. This new section makes for a really interesting read. Rebecca 12:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appointment Process

The drafters of the Constitution intended that appointments would be political in nature, and ultimately decided by the Prime Minister. For example, a left-leaning Prime Minister would tend to appoint a left-leaning judge. In this way the Prime Minister (and government) would be less inclined to interfere with the decisions of the High Court, as they already have had some influence in its makeup. Also, left and right-leaning Justices would tend to balance each out over time, as the Prime Ministers changed. The changes of the High Court of Australia Act seem to be intended to avoid significantly altering this arrangement. Perhaps the intent of the drafters of the Constitution could be included in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.176.29 (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of

Good article criteria
. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

1) The lead is too short and should consist of 3-4 paragraphs;

2) There are a lot of uncited sections, paragraphs and statements. I marked the most serious of them with appropriate tags.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a

WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Ruslik 09:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Since no improvements have been made I will delist this article. Ruslik 06:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force
. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of October 23,
WP:GAR
.

Ruslik 06:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the Court - restructure

I'd just like to suggest the sentence "Unlike other high courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United States (though federal courts do have the ability to shape federal common law), the High Court is the court of final appeal for the whole of Australia with the ability to interpret the common law for the whole of Australia, not just the state or territory in which the matter arose."

be changed to something a little clearer perhaps

The High Court is the court of final appeal for the whole of Australia with the ability to interpret the common law for the whole of Australia, not just the state or territory in which the matter arose. This is unlike other high courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United States (though federal courts do have the ability to shape federal common law).

Duffy vs. Gavan Duffy

Re this edit: Actually, the correct surname is Gavan Duffy and not just Duffy. It is a two part unhyphenated surname.

If that's so:

  • why does the Australian Dictionary of Biography list him as "Duffy, Sir Frank Gavan" (likewise for his father: "Duffy, Sir Charles Gavan")?
  • why does the ADB refer to him and his father as "Duffy"?
  • why is the Canberra suburb of Duffy so named, and not named "Gavan Duffy"?
  • why is he referred to in his own WP article as "Duffy"?; and
  • why is he Defaultsorted under Duffy, and not under Gavan Duffy? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was known as both Duffy & Gavan Duffy as was his father. When he appeared as an advocate in the High Court he was referred to as Duffy
ISBN 9781107043664. I have added some comments and references to this at Frank Gavan Duffy. Find bruce (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

"Establishment" of High Court

At the moment there seems to be a contradiction. The infobox gives "establishment" as 1901 (the date of the Constitution), while the "Formation" section says:

"The Constitution was passed by the Imperial Parliament, and came into effect on 1 January 1901. However, the High Court was not established straightaway; it was necessary for the new Parliament to make laws about the structure and procedure of the court."

That is, that the court was established by the Judiciary Act 1903. This would I think be at least consistent with the careful distinction in the lede, between "mandated" and "constituted".

I suggest changing the infobox to say 1903. Unless one wants to stretch argument put in the court's first case, Hannah v Dalgarno, so as to find establishment back in 1901, but I think that would be a BIG stretch (see Blackshield & Williams, Australian Constitutional Law and Theory, 5th edn 2010, 537-539). --Wikiain (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done it. --Wikiain (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I propose removing the {{lead too short}} template. The lead appears pretty complete to me, at least meeting Wikipedia's minimal requirements. Can anyone identify what might need to be added? --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've expanded the lead. I took out "puisne", by the way, because according to my researches (including contact with the High Court itself), it is only conventional and, even so, uncommon; though it could stay in the body of the article. The information about sittings and video links is from the High Court website: I haven't referenced that in the lead; it could be among the improvements to referencing that are needed in the body of the article. I hope this, or something like it, may satisfy MOS. I'm sure we shouldn't pad the lead out with historical highlights, particularly because to select a few (such as most of those that Shiftchange proposes) would be arbitrary and, as I said before, tending to tease. The leads to the articles on the Supreme Courts of the USA and Canada are much shorter. --Wikiain (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Puisne"

Shall we dispense with "puisne"? All WP articles on members of the High Court qualify the judge as either "Chief Justice" or "Puisne Justice". The latter, while it may be correct as a general categorisation, seems to have no basis in Australian law, to be rare in Australian practice and, overall, to be unnecessary. In the Commonwealth Constitution, the Judiciary Act 1903 and the High Court of Australia Act 1979, the distinction is only between "Chief Justice" and other "Justices", and "Chief Justice" and "Justice" are the titles that they go by. Few but lawyers would know how to pronounce "puisne" and, if they did pronounce it, I expect that both they and their hearers would have difficulty in keeping a straight face. I would not dare to use it in introducing a High Court judge to an audience. (I have seen even the mention of a former chief justice's knighthood to elicit mockery in his presence.) We should of course be consistent through all of these articles, but my preference is for achieving consistency by removing "puisne" from all of them. Tabled for discussion. --Wikiain (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can still remember the ABC referring to certain people as "Senior Puisne judge"s of this or that court. But this was back in the day when public figures were always referred to and addressed as "Mr" or "Mrs" or "Miss", none of this impertinent first-name business. However, we've all passed a lot of water since then. If puisne has gone the way of the dinosaur, let it rest, undisturbed by latter-day linguo-paleontologists. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 01:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With Jack of Oz WJ concurring and there being no dissent, judgment has been delivered and the order carried out. --Wikiain (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Letters after judicial names

On 23 May 2013, user First1remove deleted "QC" from the infobox of Patrick Keane J, on the basis that serving judges of the HCA are not referred to in that way - citing the HCA's website. I reverted this change, with an invitation to discuss here.

Yes, on the HCA website the only letters after the names of serving judges are "AC" for those that have it. Former judges, however, have all of their letters, including "QC" if they have it. WP practice is inconsistent: for example, the infobox for current Chief Justice Robert French has all of his letters, including his undergraduate qualifications. I'm inclined to go along with First1remove and follow the HCA: that is, put only "AC" in the infobox (for non-Australians, "AC" is the highest rank in the Order of Australia—equivalent to knighthood, which Australia no longer has) but put all of the letters after the name at the beginning of the article. Views, please. --Wikiain (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstood the edit, Wikiain . The objection is *not* to postnominal letters per se, it is a more specific technical legal objection: by all means include degrees and Order of Australia ranks for all judges all the time. But the title of "QC" Is a peculiar legal title: when you are elevated to a sufficiently senior bench, the QC postnominal is merged in your judicial commission and it disappears until you retire (whereupon you lose your judicial commission and the QC commission reappears). Obviously none of this is true of a BA degree or an LLB degree or an AC award -- all of which stay with you for life regardless of judicial appointment. To summarise, serving HCA judges should not have the QC postnominal; retired HCA judges should have the QC postnominal. Do whatever you like with degrees and ranks in the Order of Australia. Juriswooed (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Juriswooed[reply]

I had understood that - I only reverted to the status quo while seeking opinion. Thank you for this clear explanation. Looks like all of the articles on serving HCA justices should be reviewed. --Wikiain (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities / Online

A senior administrator of the High Court has confirmed to me today (with permission to publish this here) that the Terms of Use of the audio-visual facilities available on the Court's website permit not only the WP general link to the facility but also WP links to recordings of hearings in particular cases.--Wikiain (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article name - need for disambiguator

Why does High Court of Australia get to be the exception to the disambiguation rule? Who says that Australia has primacy? The High Court of many nations is a common term. It needs to be disambiguated either by a comma or by parentheses. (either "High Court (Australia)" or "High Court, Australia"). Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a disambiguation page,
High Court. The court is the "High Court of Australia" - see for example the "High Court of Australia Act".. Because the name is unique, it does not need further disambiguation. A comma or parenthesis does not reflect this title nor does it add anything useful. Find bruce (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, as Find bruce said, this isn't about it having primacy or being an exception, it is about the article name reflecting the actual name. The name of the court is the "High Court of Australia". (Just like, for example, the article is Supreme Court of the United States not Supreme Court (United States), because SCOTUS is the name of the court). I noticed that you made the same move with a group of articles - I'm Australian so this is the only one I am 100% certain about, but my question would be are some of those also the official names of the courts and therefore should be moved back? Melcous (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Laurel Lodged is from Ireland which may explain the confusion - article 34 of the Constitution of Ireland names that country's court as the "High Court", hence the need to disambiguate it from the High Court of other countries. The Australian Constitution however provides at section 71 that the court is to be "called the High Court of Australia". Find bruce (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well put, Find bruce and Melcous. Wikiain (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High Court of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archive link is fine & I replaced the dead link with another publication. Find bruce (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Party

If you have come here from the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Party Facebook page Wikipedia is not the place to suggest changes to how people are selected for the High Court. Please just contact your local Member of Parliament Gnangarra 07:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council

@

undue weight to include that in unqualified terms in an infobox. --Find bruce (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I've added a link to a paper in 2002 by then Chief Justice Murray Gleeson stating that s 74 has become a "dead letter", and hope that this will settle the matter. I'm grateful to Find Bruce for this material. Errantius (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appointment of judges

The infobox says "Appointed by Governor-General following nomination by Prime Minister, and advice from Attorney-General and Cabinet". The text gives even less information (usually it is the other way around). Of these people, only the A-G can be expected to have legal expertise and know anything about the past work of candidates, so I'm guess that in practice there is some process (maybe a committee?) for coming up with suitable names. If there is such a process, even if not legally binding on the PM, it should be mentioned. Zerotalk 05:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources regarding the existence of such a committee? Compusolus (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm just asking for clarification of what happens. This page has a more detailed description than we have, and it looks reliable. It says that the nomination originates with the A-G, which isn't quite in agreement. It doesn't say where the A-G gets his/her ideas from, but another thing we are missing is that the A-G has to consult with the A-Gs of the states, see also Para 6 of the High Court Act. I'm not planning to edit this article but someone should straighten out this question since the matter of how High Court judges are appointed in different jurisdictions is a matter of international interest. Zerotalk 07:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there has ever been a committee or other formal process, only the A-G consulting at will. So the current text seems to be correct. A good source is Blackshield and Williams, Australian Constitutional Law and Theory, paras 11.9-11.16 of the 6th edition 2014, but see now the 7th edition 2018 which I don't have. Errantios (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A legal requirement to consult with the AGs of the states does not fit "consulting at will". The High Court Act makes it mandatory. Zerotalk 00:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only that—so generally "at will" and, as Blackshield and Williams says, some recent A-Gs have consulted quite widely. Errantios (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody suggested that the A-G must only consult the state AGs. But in any case, at the moment the role of the A-G in the process is not mentioned at all in the main text of the article. Zerotalk 03:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that that is the only legal requirement. Much else can be done and is. Errantios (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now thoroughly revised this section of the text. Errantios (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add the Australian acronym equivalent of SCOTUS?

Should we add the acronym for the court in the vein of SCOTUS, in this case HCOAUS? 203.46.132.214 (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, no, unless that acronym can be established to be in use. I don’t think it would benefit the article for us to conjure an acronym. If there was to be an acronym, it’d simply be ‘HCA’ , as that’s an acronym that’s actually used Jack4576 (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC
Spot on, Jack. Errantios (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High_Court_of_Australia&oldid=1207512251"