Poltics In The High Court Of Australia

In order to answer this question properly the term judicial activism and the role of the High Court must be defined. Dr Paul Johnson (1994-2000, date accessed 30 May 2001) defines judicial activism as:

The view that the supreme court justices (and even lower ranking judges as well) can and should (re) interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve judges own considered estimate of the vital needs of contemporary society when the elected “political” branches of the Federal Government and/or the various State Governments seem to them to be failing to met these needs.

The role of the High Court is to interpret and apply the law of Australia; to decide cases of special federal significance including challenges to the constitutional validity of laws and to hear appeals, by Federal, State and Territory courts (High Court, date accessed 25 May 2001). This essay will show that this criticism of the court is accurate. It will also explain that the High Court needs to show some sort of judicial activism in it’s decision making because of the changing political and social

The Family Law Act, the Trade Practices Act, the Environmental Protection Act, Racial Discrimination Act, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, which he conceived, and so on. In addition, it was Lionel Murphy who introduced the statutes that abolished the death penalty for federal offences, established the Australian Law Reform Commission, abolished appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council, and established the Australian Legal Aid Office. (Hocking, 2000 forward viii).

In conclusion we can see that the criticism of the High Court for what is termed Judicial Activism is accurate. This activism has brought forth much needed change to our society. Although the decisions that are made are not always for the better they are aimed at bettering our society somehow. The fact that the Constitution is 100 years old has influenced many decisions that have been made in the High Court. Because of this it should be remembered that the justices of the High Court have to apply the Constitution to a society that has changed greatly.

Even though the High Court is not a part of the government in many ways, the judicial power and therefore it’s decisions are to be regarded as part of the totality of government institutions (Maddox 2000:257). This is because the High Courts judicial power comes under the doctrine of Separation of Powers. The High Court is the final court of appeal in Australia. This means that once the High Court rules on a case this decision cannot be changed or appealed any further. It decides on interpretations of common law, and adjudicates upon matter of dispute between the states and the commonwealth (Maddox 2000:257). Peter H Russell (2000:1) describes the High Court as being the main engine of constitutional change. The judges in the High Court make decisions on cases that, in their view, are in line with the Constitution. Those in favour of judicial restraint believe that the opinions of High Court judges should be non-biased and their rulings taken literally from the Constitution. Sir Owen Dixon, who was a chief justice of the High Court, believed in this theory. The people in favour of judicial restraint believe that judges are forming decisions based on their own personal and political experience. If this is true we must first look at how the High Court judges are chosen.

Some topics in this essay:
McAllister Lovell, Court Australia, Federal Government, Lionel Murphy, Judicial Activism, Office Hocking, Paul Johnson, Peter Russell, Federal Territory, Owen Dixon, date accessed, maley mcallister lovell, date accessed 25, mcallister lovell, kukathas maley mcallister, kukathas maley, maley mcallister, 25 2001, accessed 25 2001, accessed 25, judicial activism, court date accessed, court justices, judges court, court date,