The Judiciary Act 1903 and judicial review powers
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and Judicial Review Powers
Overview of the Judiciary Act 1903
The Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) is a foundational statute in Australian constitutional law. It establishes the structure and jurisdiction of the federal courts, particularly the High Court of Australia and the Federal Court, and outlines how these courts operate.
Key features relevant to judicial review include:
Section 75(v): Grants the High Court original jurisdiction to hear matters “in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth.”
Section 39B: Empowers the Federal Court to exercise the jurisdiction of the High Court except in matters exclusively reserved for the High Court.
Judicial Review Jurisdiction: It allows the courts to supervise the exercise of powers by Commonwealth officers and decision-makers, particularly through writs like mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and injunction.
What is Judicial Review?
Judicial review is the power of courts to review decisions, actions, or laws made by the executive or legislative branches to ensure they comply with the Constitution and legal principles. It includes:
Ensuring decision-makers act within their legal powers (ultra vires doctrine)
Protecting individuals from unlawful government action
Enforcing procedural fairness (natural justice)
Interpreting laws and statutes
In Australia, judicial review is exercised primarily through constitutional powers and the Judiciary Act 1903.
Important Case Laws on Judiciary Act and Judicial Review Powers
1. R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598
Facts:
The case involved a challenge to the jurisdiction of a tribunal established under Commonwealth legislation. The applicants sought judicial review on the grounds that the tribunal had acted beyond its powers.
Principle:
The High Court held that Section 75(v) of the Judiciary Act provides original jurisdiction to review decisions where writs such as mandamus or prohibition are sought. This case reaffirmed that courts can supervise decisions of Commonwealth officers to prevent jurisdictional errors.
Relevance:
It confirmed the role of the High Court as a guardian against unlawful executive action and established the basis for judicial review under the Judiciary Act.
2. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts:
This case dealt with the validity of a privative clause (a clause designed to limit judicial review) in migration law, which purported to prevent judicial review of administrative decisions.
Principle:
The High Court held that Section 75(v) of the Judiciary Act protects judicial review against attempts to oust it through privative clauses. Courts cannot be prevented from reviewing jurisdictional errors.
Relevance:
This landmark decision firmly established that judicial review under the Judiciary Act is constitutionally guaranteed and cannot be negated by legislation.
3. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Facts:
Li challenged a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, claiming it failed to comply with procedural fairness and made jurisdictional errors.
Principle:
The High Court emphasized that jurisdictional errors invalidate administrative decisions and are reviewable under Section 75(v) of the Judiciary Act. The decision highlighted the courts' role in ensuring procedural fairness.
Relevance:
It reinforced the principle that administrative decisions must comply with legal limits, or they risk being quashed by judicial review.
4. Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Facts:
Craig challenged decisions of administrative tribunals on the basis they made errors within jurisdiction, but not jurisdictional errors, and sought judicial review.
Principle:
The High Court distinguished between jurisdictional errors (reviewable) and non-jurisdictional errors (not reviewable). The case refined the scope of judicial review under the Judiciary Act and constitutional law.
Relevance:
It provided clarity on when courts can intervene to review administrative decisions under the Judiciary Act.
5. Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596
Facts:
Annetts challenged a coronial inquest’s failure to observe procedural fairness.
Principle:
The High Court held that judicial review protects procedural fairness and that failure to observe it can lead to invalidation of administrative decisions.
Relevance:
This case affirmed the role of the Judiciary Act and judicial review powers in ensuring natural justice in administrative decisions.
6. Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales (2010) 239 CLR 531
Facts:
Kirk challenged a tribunal decision that allegedly exceeded its jurisdiction.
Principle:
The High Court ruled that state tribunals must comply with the rules of natural justice and the doctrine of jurisdictional error, and such decisions are reviewable.
Relevance:
Though a state matter, it reinforced the principle that judicial review and supervisory jurisdiction over administrative bodies are fundamental and protected by the Judiciary Act framework.
Summary of Principles on Judiciary Act and Judicial Review
| Principle | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Section 75(v) jurisdiction | Courts have original jurisdiction to issue writs controlling unlawful acts by Commonwealth officers | R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox & Clinton |
| Protection from privative clauses | Judicial review cannot be ousted by legislation trying to exclude court oversight | Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth |
| Jurisdictional error doctrine | Errors affecting the legal authority of decision-makers are grounds for review | Minister for Immigration v Li |
| Distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors | Only jurisdictional errors attract review under Judiciary Act | Craig v South Australia |
| Procedural fairness requirement | Decisions must comply with natural justice or be invalid | Annetts v McCann |
| Supervisory jurisdiction applies to tribunals and administrative bodies | Ensures all government decisions are subject to legal limits | Kirk v Industrial Court of NSW |
Conclusion
The Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) forms the legal backbone for judicial review of Commonwealth government decisions in Australia. Through Section 75(v), the High Court and Federal Court have the power to ensure that public officials and administrative bodies act within their lawful authority. The case law outlined clarifies how courts apply this jurisdiction to uphold legality, fairness, and constitutional safeguards, thereby maintaining the rule of law in government.
RELATED Blog
0 comments