Neil Laurie

It is not uncommon for the activities of ad hoc and permanent commissions of inquiry to be the subject of judicial review. But the series of decisions that culminated in the very recent High Court decision of Crime and Corruption Commission v Carne [2023] HCA 28 requires special attention as they deal with the intersection of judicial review of a permanent commission of inquiry’s report provided to its parliamentary oversight committee, thereby potentially raising issues of parliamentary privilege.

Joe McIntyre

What is a Court? What does a Court do? What are we left with when we strip away the theatre and ceremony, the grand buildings and reams of paper, the gladiatorial intellectual sparring, and careful deliberations? We are so focused on the processes and outputs of courts that we rarely stop to reflect on the fundamental purposes they serve, and the limits that these purposes impose on them.

The peccadillos of the Australian Constitution (the autochthonous expedient, structural implications, the US/UK hybrid etc) means that we have a particularly active jurisprudence on the nature, limits and implication of judicial power. In its latest contribution to this oeuvre, AZC20 v MICMSMA, the High Court grappled once more with the concept of ‘matter’ in the context of an appeal rendered moot by intervening events. In an 4-1 decision, the Court held that the Full Court of the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal where events meant that there was no longer any active dispute.

Bharan Narula

Is a trial on indictment for an offence contrary to a law of a self-governing territory a ‘law of the Commonwealth’ for the purpose of s 80 of the Constitution? To the extent that R v Bernasconi (1915) (Bernasconi) has been understood to decide that the power in s 122 is not subject to the requirements of s 80, will a case likely need to involve a trial on indictment of an offence enacted by the Commonwealth Parliament under s 122 for a majority to decide whether Bernasconi should be distinguished or re-opened? These questions were considered in Vunilagi v The Queen [2023] HCA 24.

Janina Boughey

Among English-speaking common law jurisdictions Australia has been the most resistent to doctrines of deference in the administrative law context. It is often said that Australia’s High Court has rejected deference. In fact, a majority of the High Court has rejected Chevron deference, but only in obiter. Nevertheless, it is true that Australia has no ‘doctrine’ of deference, that Chevron deference specifically is generally thought to be inconsistent with the Australian conception of the separation of powers, and that the very mention of the word ‘deference’ seems to provoke the ire of some judges.