Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Options for the Doctrine of Crown Immunity

Options for the Doctrine of Crown Immunity

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10 |Likes:
Published by Luke McMahon

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Luke McMahon on Apr 26, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/02/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Options for the doctrine of Crown immunity in21st century Australia
Dr Anthony Gray
*
This article outlines the historical development of the position of the Crown in terms of immunity from statute, and considers the reception of thesdoctrines in Australian law, including the extra complication provided by federal system in discussing these issues. The author then considers various formulations that might be used in future, including broad and narrow conceptions of immunity, in an attempt to make the law in this area as coherent as possible while recognising the realities and requirements of modern governance.
I
NTRODUCTION
The legal position of the Crown
1
has been considered over many centuries, spanning periods duringwhich the notion of the Crown evolved from the monarch to something much broader, and the role of the monarch in law making greatly minimised. The issue of the extent to which the Crown is bound bystatute has been contentious. As we will see, various formulations of the immunity have found favourwith judges. I will refer to two main formulations: (a) a narrow view of Crown immunity, confiningthe immunity to legislation affecting what we call Crown prerogatives;
2
and (b) a broader view of Crown immunity, meaning an immunity from all kinds of legislation. The issue of Crown immunityremains a live one, considered (in the context of derivative Crown immunity) by the High Court of Australia in
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd 
(2007) 232CLR 1.
3
E
ARLY HISTORY
: C
ROWN IMMUNITY FROM STATUTE
?
Some royalists believed that subjects could not question, let alone attempt to overrule, the King’sactions. The King could voluntarily submit to the law but could not be coerced by it.
4
Bracton in his1235
Laws and Customs of England 
wrote, Quod Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deb etLege (that the King should not be under man, but under God and the law). Coke is said to have quotedBracton in response to claims by James I that he governed as of divine right, and thus it wastreasonous to suggest the monarch be subject to law. John Bradshaw, who presided over the trial atwhich Charles I was sentenced to death, is said to have relied on Bracton’s comments to justify theproceedings.
5
Significant historical documents, including the
Bill of Rights 1689
(ENG) and theUnited States
Declaration of Independence
in 1776, suggest that the monarch is subject to legislation.
6
*
Associate Professor, Law, University of Southern Queensland. Thanks to the anonymous reviewer.
1
A precise definition of the Crown is elusive, see: Cornford T, “Legal Remedies Against the Crown and its Officers” inSunkin M and Payne S (eds),
The Nature of the Crown
(1999) p 233 (the concept of the Crown is “deeply ambiguous”);Winterton G,
Parliament, the Executive and the Governor-General
(1983) p 207 (in the monarchies of the BritishCommonwealth, the Crown is shorthand for executive government); Seddon N, “The Crown” (2000) 28 Fed L Rev 245 at247-248 (the concept is abstract but could be used (in Australia) to describe 10 bodies politic as legal entities).
2
These will be defined later.
3
Derivative immunity is the extent to which bodies dealing with the Crown are entitled to the same immunities and privilegesas the Crown enjoys. More detailed discussion of derivative immunity appears in Wright R, “The Future of Derivative CrownImmunity – With a Competition Law Perspective” (2007) 14
Competition and Consumer Law Journal
240.
4
Goldsworthy J,
The Sovereignty of Parliament 
(1999) pp 80-83.
5
Lord Denning,
What Next in the Law?
(1982) p 6.
6
Both documents point out alleged infractions by the monarch (James II and George III respectively) against the law. The
 Magna Carta
1215 established the possibility that the will of the monarch could be overturned by others but for various reasonsthis was not enforced until much later.
(2009) 16 AJ Admin L 200200
 
In
Willion v Berkley
(1561) 1 Plowden 223; 75 ER 339, the Court of King’s Bench found that thestatute
De Donis Conditionalibus
, restricting the alienation of land, bound the Crown in the absence of express words or necessary implication. Brown J concluded that it was a “difficult argument to provethat a statute, which restrains men generally from doing wrong, leaves the King at liberty to dowrong”. Dyer CJ found “that which is necessary and useful to be reformed requires to be reformed inall, and not in part only”.In
Magdalen College
(1615) 11 Co Rep 66 at 72a; 77 ER 1235 at 1243, the court found thatCrown immunity from statute was confined to laws that derogated from “any prerogative, estate, right,title or interest of the Crown”.
7
Lord Coke in that case claimed that the King was bound by Acts forthe suppression of wrong, holding that the “King cannot do a wrong”.
8
Acts made for the public goodwere also binding on the King, as were laws for the advancement of religion. Similarly in
Case of Proclamations
(1611) 12 Co Rep 63, Coke held the Crown had no inherent power to make or alter thelaw of the land. The strong links between the judiciary and the monarchy in these and earlier timeshave been noted and the suggestion made that it was understandable that judges should show greatdeference to the royal prerogative given that judges were considered royal servants.
9
In
Case of Ecclesiastical Persons
(1601) Co Rep 14a at 14b, it was said:
in divers cases the king is bound by act of Parliament although he not be named in it, not bound byexpress words; and therefore all statutes which are made to suppress wrong, or to take away fraud, or toprevent the decay of religion, shall bind the King.
10
Subsequently, and perhaps as Street says,
11
influenced by the trend towards a literal interpretationof statutes generally, judges in England began to take the view that the Crown was not bound bystatute unless there were express words to that effect.
12
A further gloss to this was added; that statutes,though not binding the Crown expressly, could do so by “necessary implication”.
13
These subsequentdevelopments are purely judicial add-ons, and cannot find support in the original statements in the17th century cases.
14
These glosses continue to be applied today, at least in England.
15
The PrivyCouncil in
Province of Bombay v Municipal Corporation of Bombay
[1947] AC 58 at 63, establisheda very strict test as the basis for which a necessary implication could be made, requiring that thebeneficent purpose of the Act be wholly frustrated if the Crown were not bound, in order that theCrown be bound.
7
See also
Attorney-General v Allgood 
(1734) 4 Parker 1 at 3-5; 145 ER 696 at 697. This is the “narrow” conception of Crownimmunity from statute.
8
Solum Rex hoc non potest facere, quod non potest injuste agree; adopted in
Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners v Ryan
(1911) 13 CLR 338 at 365 (Griffith CJ), 370 (Barton J to like effect).
9
Plunknett T,
Statutes and Their Interpretation in the Fourteenth Century
(1922) p 167; Street H, “The Effect of Statutes Uponthe Rights and Liabilities of the Crown” (1947) 7 Univ Toronto LJ 357.
10
Though the case cannot be regarded as of strong authority as it was apparently heard in Parliament. This is pre-GloriousRevolution.
11
Street, n 9 at 367.
12
See, eg
R v Cook 
(1790) 3 TR 519 at 521 per Lord Kenyon: “generally speaking, in the construction of acts of parliament, theking in his royal character is not included, unless there be words to that effect”; see also
Attorney-General v Donaldson
(1842)10 M & W 117 at 124 (Alderson B);
Ex Parte Postmaster Genera; Re Bonham
(1879) 10 Ch D 595 at 601 (Jessel MR).
13
See, eg
US v Hoar 
(1821) 2 Mason 311 at 314-315 per Story J: “where the government is not expressly or by necessaryimplication included, it ought to be clear from the nature of the mischief to be redressed, or the language used, that theGovernment itself was within the contemplation of the legislature, before a court of law would be authorised to put such aconstruction on any statute. In general, Acts of the legislature are meant to regulate and direct the different, and often contraryforce to the government itself. It appears therefore to be a safe rule founded on the principles of the common law, that thegeneral words of a statute ought not to include the government, or affect its rights, unless that construction be clear andindisputable upon the text of the Act”. Kirby J cast doubt on the continued correctness of Story J’s remarks, given the growthof the regulatory state, in
ACCC v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd 
(2007) 232 CLR 1 at 55.
14
Street, n 9; Hogg P,
Liability of the Crown
(2nd ed, 1989) p 243.
15
Province of Bombay v Municipal Corporation of Bombay
[1947] AC 58 at 61;
Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council
[1990] SC (HL) 1;
M v Home Offıce
[1994] 1 AC 377. This is the broader view of Crown immunity from statute.
Options for the doctrine of Crown immunity in 21st century Australia(2009) 16 AJ Admin L 200 201
 
P
OSITION IN
A
USTRALIA
: C
ROWN IMMUNITY FROM STATUTE
Conflicting positions are evident in the early High Court of Australia decisions
16
where the question of Crown immunity from statute was raised.
17
There is difference of opinion as to whether the immunityis broad or narrow, as defined above.In
Roberts v Ahern
(1904) 1 CLR 406 at 417-418, Griffith CJ, speaking for the court, declared thegeneral rule that the Crown is not bound by a statute unless it appeared on the face of the statute thatit was intended so, declaring the immunity was based on the royal prerogative. Griffith CJacknowledged authority suggesting that the Crown could be bound if it were necessarily implied thatit was intended it be bound.In
Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners v Ryan
(1911) 13 CLR 358, a different view wasapparent. Griffith CJ appeared to suggest a narrow version of the prerogative, stating that laws notspecifically naming the Crown could bind the Crown, but any law that stripped the Crown of itsancient prerogative would have to specifically name the Crown (at 365):
The doctrine that the Crown is not bound by a Statute unless specifically named or included bynecessary implication has been sometimes misunderstood and extended beyond the purposes for whichit was laid down … It “does
not 
mean that the King, looked upon as a mere individual, may not be incertain cases precluded by Statutes, which do not specifically name him, ‘of such inferior rights asbelong indifferently to the King or to a subject, such as the title to an advowson or a landed estate’;what it does mean is that the King cannot … be stripped by a Statute, which does not specifically namehim, of any part of his ancient prerogative”.
18
Griffith CJ found that the government of New South Wales was subject to the same laws asindividuals, at least in its commercial operations (at 367). Barton J took a similar position, concludingthat if the intention of the Act was to provide for the public good, or the advancement of religion or justice, or to provide a remedy against a wrong, prevent fraud, or tort, the Crown would be bound.Defining the issue as a question of the intention of Parliament
19
rather than a general immunity,Barton J concluded that if Parliament had wished to exempt the Crown from the legislation beingconsidered, it could and would have done so expressly (at 371). As a result, no immunity existed.
20
A narrower conception of Crown immunity also appears in the High Court decision of 
Minister  for Works (WA) v Gulson
(1944) 69 CLR 338. There was support (at 356 (Rich J), 358 (Starke J), 362(McTiernan J)) for the proposition that the Crown is not bound by any statute in the absence of express words or necessary implication (the broad immunity), but Latham CJ (dissenting) refused toapply a presumption that the Crown (in right of a State) not be bound by Commonwealth law (at 353).Williams J (with whom Rich J agreed) would confine the immunity to cases involving “theprerogative, right or property of the Crown”; in such cases, the statute would need to apply to theCrown expressly or by necessary implication before the Crown would be bound.The High Court accepted the broad immunity provided by the Privy Council in
Bombay
in
Commonwealth v Rhind 
(1966) 119 CLR 584 at 598 (Barwick CJ),
21
but again, a narrower view wasevident by some members of the court in
Downs v Williams
(1971) 126 CLR 61. There, Gibbs J noted
16
I believe that the divergence of views taken by various judges on these issues in Australia’s legal history justifies a fullerdiscussion of past cases than I would otherwise pursue.
17
On the position of the Crown generally in Australia, see Winterton G, “The Evolution of a Separate Australian Crown” (1993)19 Mon LR 1; Winterton G, “The Limits and Use of Executive Power by Government” (2003) 31 Fed L Rev 421; Stokes M.“Are there Separate State Crowns?” (1998) 20 Syd LR 127.
18
Citing
Hardcastle on Statutes
(1st ed), p 180. Griffith CJ cited the comment of Lord Coke in
Magdalen College
(1615) 11 CoRep 66; 77 ER 1235 that “the King cannot do a wrong”.
19
The importance of intention of Parliament in assessing whether immunity exists was also emphasised
Amalgamated Society of  Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd 
(1920) 28 CLR 129 at 154 (Knox CJ, Isaacs Rich and Starke JJ).
20
In relation to the ability of one government in a federation to legislate to bind another, see
Amalgamated Society of Engineersv Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd 
(1920) 28 CLR 129 at 145.
21
See also
Wynyard Investments Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Railways (NSW)
(1955) 93 CLR 376;
China Ocean Shipping Co vSouth Australia
(1979) 145 CLR 172.
Gray(2009) 16 AJ Admin L 200202

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->