State Supreme Courts and supervisory jurisdiction
State Supreme Courts and Supervisory Jurisdiction
Supervisory jurisdiction refers to the power that State Supreme Courts hold to oversee and control inferior courts, tribunals, and public authorities. It ensures legality, fairness, and that authorities act within their powers (i.e., do not exceed or abuse their jurisdiction).
Why is Supervisory Jurisdiction Important?
It protects individuals’ rights against unlawful administrative action.
Ensures that lower courts and tribunals do not act beyond their jurisdiction (ultra vires).
Provides a mechanism for judicial review of decisions.
Maintains the rule of law and prevents misuse or abuse of power.
How Does Supervisory Jurisdiction Operate?
Typically, Supreme Courts exercise supervisory jurisdiction through prerogative writs, such as:
Certiorari: Quashes decisions made beyond jurisdiction or with legal error.
Mandamus: Commands a public authority to perform a duty.
Prohibition: Prevents a lower court or tribunal from acting beyond jurisdiction.
Habeas Corpus: Orders the release of a person unlawfully detained.
The court also uses declaratory relief and injunctions to enforce legality.
Key Case Laws on Supervisory Jurisdiction
1. Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Facts: The High Court considered whether administrative decisions could be reviewed for jurisdictional error.
Legal Issues: The scope of judicial review and the definition of jurisdictional error.
Outcome: The High Court affirmed that errors of law made by tribunals or inferior courts that go to jurisdiction can be challenged by supervisory writs.
Significance: Clarified the concept of jurisdictional error and reinforced the supervisory jurisdiction of Supreme Courts as essential for judicial review.
2. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Facts: Kioa challenged the decision to deport him without being given a chance to be heard.
Legal Issues: Whether procedural fairness is required in administrative decisions.
Outcome: The High Court held that procedural fairness (natural justice) is an essential element in lawful exercise of power.
Significance: Emphasized the supervisory jurisdiction role in enforcing procedural fairness and ensuring administrative decisions are lawful.
3. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611
Facts: Concerns the limits of judicial review regarding decisions made by administrative tribunals.
Legal Issues: Whether certain decisions were amenable to review under supervisory jurisdiction.
Outcome: The High Court reiterated that judicial review protects against jurisdictional error but does not generally extend to mere errors of fact or law.
Significance: Refined the limits of supervisory jurisdiction, distinguishing jurisdictional from non-jurisdictional errors.
4. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (Privy Council, influential in Australia)
Facts: Anisminic challenged a decision by the Foreign Compensation Commission that purported to exclude judicial review.
Legal Issues: Whether a statutory ouster clause can prevent supervisory jurisdiction.
Outcome: The Privy Council held that any error going to jurisdiction makes a decision a nullity, and ouster clauses cannot exclude judicial review for jurisdictional error.
Significance: Established the principle that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be ousted by legislation if jurisdictional error is present.
5. Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82
Facts: Concerns the Refugee Review Tribunal’s failure to consider relevant evidence.
Legal Issues: Whether failure to consider relevant evidence amounted to jurisdictional error.
Outcome: The High Court found that failure to take into account relevant considerations constituted jurisdictional error, justifying supervisory intervention.
Significance: Affirmed that supervisory jurisdiction protects against failures to comply with mandatory procedural requirements.
6. R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598
Facts: A challenge to a tribunal’s decision on procedural grounds.
Legal Issues: The extent of supervisory jurisdiction in reviewing tribunals.
Outcome: The High Court recognized that courts can intervene where a tribunal acts outside its jurisdiction or breaches natural justice.
Significance: Early authority reinforcing the supervisory role of Supreme Courts over inferior bodies.
Summary of Supervisory Jurisdiction Principles
Supreme Courts ensure that inferior courts and administrative bodies act within their legal powers.
Prerogative writs are the tools for supervisory jurisdiction.
Supervisory jurisdiction enforces jurisdictional limits, procedural fairness, and rule of law.
Courts can intervene in cases of jurisdictional error, ultra vires acts, and breaches of natural justice.
Parliamentary attempts to limit judicial review via ouster clauses have been restricted by case law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments