(High Court of Australia) There was an alleged constitutional irregularity in the law-making process.
Held: Ordinarily the court’s interference to ensure due observance of the constitution in connection with the making of laws is effected by a post-enactment declaration that what purports to be an Act is void. This is a sufficient means of ensuring that the processes of law-making which the constitution requires are properly followed. But in point of jurisdiction the court is not limited to that method of ensuring the observance of the constitutional processes of law-making. In an appropriate case the court is able, and indeed in a proper case bound, to interfere. Exceptionally, there might be intervention in the parliamentary process. Menzies J. and Stephen J. Menzies J. stated that it was no part of the authority of the court to restrain Parliament from making unconstitutional laws, but left open the case where the adoption of a particular law-making procedure would defeat the constitutional power of the court to deal effectively with legislation when enacted. Stephen J based the limitation of court intervention on jurisdictional and not discretionary grounds, but he envisaged there may be exceptions.
Judges:
Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Menzies, Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ
Citations:
(1974) 131 CL R 432
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – The Bahamas District of the Methodist Church in the Caribbean and the Americas and Others v The Hon Vernon J Symonette M P Speaker of the House of Assembly and 7 Others (No 70 of 1998) and Ormond Hilton Poitier and 14 Others v The Methodist Church PC 26-Jul-2000
PC (The Bahamas) The Methodist community had split, eventually leading to a new Act. Others now challenged the constitionality of the Act, and that lands had been transferred in breach of the constitution.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.187514