Avstraliya Oliy sudi - High Court of Australia

Avstraliya Oliy sudi
Avstraliya gerbi
Qirg'og'ida joylashgan Oliy sud binosi Burli Griffin ko'li, Kanberra
O'rnatilgan	1903
Yurisdiktsiya	Avstraliya
Manzil	Kanberra, Avstraliya poytaxti hududi
Koordinatalar	35 ° 17′56 ″ S 149 ° 08′09 ″ E / 35.2989741 ° S 149.1357239 ° E / -35.2989741; 149.1357239
Tarkibi usuli	Tomonidan tayinlangan General-gubernator tomonidan nomzodlikdan keyin Bosh Vazir va maslahat Bosh prokuror va Kabinet
Mualliflik huquqi	Avstraliya konstitutsiyasi s 71
Murojaatlar	Oliy sudlari Shtatlar va hududlar Federal sud Federal tuman sudi
Sudyaning muddati	70 yoshga qadar majburiy pensiya
Lavozimlar soni	7, qonun bo'yicha
Veb-sayt	hcourt.gov.au
Avstraliya bosh sudyasi
Hozirda	Syuzan Kifel AC
Beri	2017 yil 30-yanvar (2017-01-30)

The Avstraliya Oliy sudi eng yuqori suddir Avstraliya sud ierarxiyasi va final apellyatsiya sudi.^[1] Unda ikkalasi ham bor original va apellyatsiya sudlovi, kuchi sud nazorati tomonidan qabul qilingan qonunlar ustidan Avstraliya parlamenti va davlatlar va hududlar parlamentlari hamda ularni izohlash qobiliyati Avstraliya konstitutsiyasi va shu bilan rivojlanishini shakllantiradi Avstraliyadagi federalizm.

Oliy sudning 71-moddasi vakolatli Avstraliya konstitutsiyasi unda qaysi yelek bor sud hokimiyati Avstraliya Hamdo'stligi. Sud tomonidan tashkil etilgan va uning birinchi a'zolari ostida tayinlangan Sud hokimiyati to'g'risidagi qonun 1903 yil. Hozirda u konstitutsiyaning 71 dan 75 gacha bo'lgan bo'limlari ostida ishlaydi Sud qonuni,^[2] va Avstraliya Oliy sudi to'g'risidagi qonun 1979.^[3] U ettita odil sudyadan iborat: Avstraliya bosh sudyasi, hozirda Syuzan Kifel ACva yana oltita sudyalar. Ular tomonidan rasmiy ravishda tayinlangan Avstraliya general-gubernatori federal hukumatning maslahati bilan va konstitutsiya bo'yicha 70 yoshida nafaqaga chiqishi kerak.

Oliy sudning doimiy uyi bo'lgan Kanberra 1980 yildan beri. Uning majlislarining aksariyati meros ro'yxatdan o'tgan Da joylashgan Oliy sud binosi Parlament uchburchagi qarama-qarshi Burli Griffin ko'li.^[4] Video aloqalardan foydalanish tobora ko'payib borayotganligi sababli, ko'pincha davlat poytaxtlarida yig'ilishlar o'tkaziladi.

Rol

Oliy sud ikkalasini ham asl nusxada qo'llaydi yurisdiktsiya (Oliy sudda kelib chiqadigan ishlar) va apellyatsiya yurisdiksiyasi (boshqa sudlardan Oliy sudga qilingan shikoyatlar). Oliy sud bu sharhlash imkoniyatiga ega bo'lgan oxirgi apellyatsiya sudidir umumiy Qonun butun Avstraliya uchun, masalaning paydo bo'lgan davlati yoki hududi emas. Oliy sudning keng yurisdiksiyasi shunga o'xshashdir Kanada Oliy sudi va farqli o'laroq Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi cheklangan yurisdiktsiyaga ega bo'lgan. Shunday qilib, sud barcha shtatlar va hududlar bo'yicha umumiy qonunni izchil ishlab chiqishga qodir. Ushbu rol konstitutsiyaviy talqindagi o'rni bilan bir qatorda sudning eng muhim rollaridan biridir. Sifatida Ser Ouen Dikson Avstraliyaning bosh sudyasi sifatida qasamyod qilganida shunday dedi:

"Oliy sudning yurisdiksiyasi, asosan, jamoatchilik e'tiborida bo'lgan konstitutsiyaviy va federal ishlar o'rtasida va Konstitutsiya bilan hech qanday aloqasi bo'lmagan inson va inson, hatto inson va hukumat o'rtasidagi sud jarayonining katta qismi o'rtasida bo'linadi; va bu sudning asosiy ishidir. "^[5]

Ushbu keng yurisdiktsiya majmuasi Oliy sudga Avstraliya qonunlarida etakchi rolni bajarishga imkon beradi va turli shtatlar qonunlari o'rtasida izchillik va bir xillikka hissa qo'shadi.^[6]

Asl yurisdiktsiya

Oliy sudning dastlabki yurisdiksiyasi dastlab Oliy sudda ko'rib chiqiladigan masalalarni anglatadi. Avstraliya Konstitutsiyasi haqiqiy (75-bo'lim) va potentsial (76-bo'lim) asl yurisdiksiyasini beradi.

Konstitutsiyaning 75-bo'limi "barcha masalalar" bo'yicha dastlabki yurisdiktsiyani beradi:

Asl yurisdiksiyaning berilishi Oliy sud uchun bir qator muammolarni keltirib chiqaradi. Masalan, immigratsiya bilan bog'liq qarorlarga qarshi da'volar ko'pincha Hamdo'stlik zobitiga qarshi Oliy sudning dastlabki yurisdiksiyasiga kiritilgan.

76-bo'lim parlamentni taqdim etadi mumkin masalalar bo'yicha dastlabki yurisdiktsiyani berish:

76 (i) bo'limida ko'rsatilgan konstitutsiyaviy masalalar Oliy sudga 30-bo'lim tomonidan berilgan Sud hokimiyati to'g'risidagi qonun 1903 yil.^[2] Biroq, konstitutsiyaviy masalalarni 75-bo'limga emas, 76-qismga kiritish, Oliy sudning konstitutsiyaviy masalalar bo'yicha dastlabki yurisdiktsiyasini olib tashlashni anglatadi. Amalda, 75 (iii) bo'lim (Hamdo'stlikka da'vo qilish) va 75 (iv) bo'lim (davlatlar o'rtasidagi ziddiyatlar) etarlicha keng bo'lib, ko'plab konstitutsiyaviy masalalar hanuzgacha yurisdiksiyaga kiradi. Oliy sudning dastlabki konstitutsiyaviy yurisdiksiyasi endi aniqlangan: Avstraliya qonun islohotlari bo'yicha komissiyasi konstitutsiyaviy masalalarni 75-bo'limga emas, 76-bo'limga kiritilishini "tarixning g'alati haqiqati" deb ta'riflagan.^[7] The 1998 yil Konstitutsiyaviy konventsiya yurisdiktsiyani parlament tomonidan olib tashlanishining oldini olish uchun konstitutsiyaga o'zgartirish kiritishni tavsiya qildi. Ushbu masala bo'yicha ish yuritilmasa, parlamentning bu qadamni qo'yishi ehtimoldan yiroq deb hisoblangan.

Konstitutsiyaning 75-moddasi va 76-moddasidagi "masala" talabi konkret masalani hal qilish zarurligini anglatadi va Oliy sud maslahat xulosasini bera olmaydi.^[8]

Apellatsiya yurisdiksiyasi

Avstraliya sud ierarxiyasi
Federal qonun sudlari
Avstraliya Oliy sudi Avstraliya Federal sudi Avstraliya oilaviy sudi Avstraliyaning Federal tuman sudi Hamdo'stlik sudlari va tribunallari
Sudlari Avstraliya shtatlari va hududlari
Yangi Janubiy Uels sudlari Viktoriya sudlari Kvinslend sudlari G'arbiy Avstraliya sudlari Janubiy Avstraliya sudlari Tasmaniya sudlari Avstraliya poytaxt hududiy sudlari Shimoliy hududiy sudlar Norfolk orolining sudlari

Oliy sudning apellyatsiya yurisdiksiyasi Konstitutsiyaning 73-qismida belgilangan. Oliy sud yuqori sudlarning shikoyatlarini ko'rib chiqishi mumkin davlatlar va hududlar, federal yurisdiksiyani amalga oshiradigan har qanday federal sud yoki sud (masalan Avstraliya Federal sudi, Avstraliyaning Federal tuman sudi, yoki boshqa federal sudlar) va sudning asl yurisdiktsiyasini amalga oshiradigan bir yoki bir nechta sudyalar tomonidan chiqarilgan qarorlar.

Biroq, 73-bo'lim apellyatsiya yurisdiktsiyasini "bunday istisnolardan tashqari va parlament belgilagan qoidalarga bo'ysungan holda" cheklashga imkon beradi. Parlamentning 35A qismida katta cheklovlar belgilangan Sud hokimiyati to'g'risidagi qonun 1903 yil. Buning uchun apellyatsiya uchun "maxsus ta'til" talab qilinadi. Maxsus ta'til faqat jamoat ahamiyatiga ega bo'lgan yoki sudlar o'rtasidagi ziddiyatni o'z ichiga olgan qonun masalasi ko'tarilgan taqdirda beriladi; yoki "odil sudlovni amalga oshirish manfaatlariga javob beradi". Shuning uchun, Oliy sud apellyatsiya sudining so'nggi sudi bo'lsa-da, uni umumiy apellyatsiya sudi deb hisoblash mumkin emas. Shikoyat qilish uchun maxsus ta'til berish to'g'risida qarorni Oliy sudning bir yoki bir nechta odil sudlovi (amalda ikki yoki uch sudyadan iborat hay'at) belgilaydi. Ya'ni, Sud qaysi apellyatsiya ishlarini ko'rib chiqishini hal qilish vakolatiga ega.^[9]

Maxfiy kengashga murojaat qiladi

Oliy suddan Buyuk Britaniyaga murojaat qilish masalasi Maxfiy kengashning sud qo'mitasi Konstitutsiyani ishlab chiqish paytida muhim ahamiyatga ega edi va sud tashkil topgandan keyingi yillarda ham muhim ahamiyat kasb etdi. Konstitutsiyaning 74-qismining turli koloniyalardagi saylovchilarga qo'yilgan mazmuni shuni anglatadiki, Konstitutsiyani yoki davlat Konstitutsiyasini talqin qilish bilan bog'liq har qanday masalada Maxfiy Kengashga hech qanday murojaat qilish kerak emas, agar u manfaatlariga daxldor bo'lmasa. ba'zi boshqa hukmronlik.^[10]

Imperatorlik parlamenti tomonidan qabul qilingan Konstitutsiyaning 74-qismi,^[11] cheklovlar to'g'risidagi nizolarni o'z ichiga olgan konstitutsiyaviy masalalar bo'yicha taqiqlangan shikoyatlar inter se Hamdo'stlik yoki davlat vakolatlari, Oliy sud tomonidan tasdiqlangan holatlar bundan mustasno, shikoyat Maxfiy Kengash tomonidan belgilanishi kerak. Buni faqat bir marta qildi: 1912 yilda Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd - Bosh prokuror (Cth) sud teng bo'linganida.^[12] Maxfiy Kengash unga qo'yilgan konstitutsiyaviy savollarga javob berishdan bosh tortganidan so'ng, Oliy sud hech qachon boshqasini tasdiqlamagan inter se Shikoyat qilish.^[13] Haqiqatan ham Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (1985), sud yana hech qachon apellyatsiya guvohnomasini bermasligini aytdi.^[14]

Ammo umumiy masalalarda 74-bo'lim Maxfiy Kengashga Oliy sudning istaklariga qarshi shikoyat qilish uchun ta'til berishiga to'sqinlik qilmadi va Kengash buni tez-tez amalga oshirdi. Ba'zi hollarda Kengash Avstraliyaning umumiy huquqi ingliz qonunchiligidan farqli ravishda rivojlanganligini va shuning uchun o'z printsiplarini qo'llamaganligini tan oldi (masalan, Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren (1967),^[15] yoki ichida Viro va qirolicha (1978)),^[16] yordamida huquqiy fantastika turli xil umumiy qonunlar turli xil holatlarda qo'llanilishi mumkinligini ta'kidladi.^[17] Ammo, boshqa holatlarda, Maxfiy Kengash inglizcha qarorlarni, Oliy sudning ortiqcha qarorlarini ijro etdi. Yilda Parker - Qirolicha^[18] (1963), bosh sudya ser Ouen Dikson bir ovozdan hukm chiqargan, bu sud qarorini rad etgan. Lordlar palatasi yilda DPP va Smit "Men bu masala bo'yicha qonundan uzoqlashmayman, chunki biz uni sudga berganimizdan beri va Smitning ishi Avstraliyada umuman hokimiyat sifatida ishlatilmasligi kerak".^[18] Keyingi yil Maxfiy Kengash Lordlar Palatasi pretsedentini qo'llagan holda apellyatsiya shikoyatini qondirdi.^[19]

74-bo'limda parlament Maxfiy Kengashga murojaat qilishning oldini olish uchun qonunlar qabul qilishi mumkinligi nazarda tutilgan va u 1968 yildan boshlab, Maxfiy kengash (Apellyatsiya shikoyatlarini cheklash) to'g'risidagi qonun 1968 yilfederal qonunlar bilan bog'liq masalalar bo'yicha Maxfiy Kengashga barcha murojaatlarni yopib qo'ydi.^[20] 1975 yilda Maxfiy kengash (Oliy sudning apellyatsiyalari) to'g'risidagi qonun 1975 yil qabul qilindi, bu Oliy sudning barcha apellyatsiya yo'nalishlarini yopishga ta'sir qildi.^[21] Maxfiy Kengashga Oliy suddan shikoyat qilish endi faqat nazariy jihatdan mumkin inter se Oliy sud Konstitutsiyaning 74-qismiga binoan apellyatsiya guvohnomasini beradimi, muhim ahamiyatga ega. Yuqorida ta'kidlab o'tilganidek, Oliy sud 1985 yilda kelajakda bunday sertifikat bermasligini ko'rsatgan. 1986 yilda, o'tishi bilan Avstraliya qonuni ikkalasi tomonidan Buyuk Britaniya parlamenti^[22] va Avstraliya parlamenti (Avstraliya davlatlarining so'rovi va roziligi bilan),^[23] Maxfiy Kengashga shtatdagi Oliy sudlardan shikoyatlar yopilib, Oliy sud apellyatsiya uchun yagona yo'l bo'lib qoldi. 2002 yilda, Bosh sudya Myurrey Glison qonunchilikning "birgalikdagi ta'siri" va e'lon Kirmani "74-lar o'lik xatga aylandi va Maxfiy Kengashga murojaatlarni cheklovchi qonunchilikdan keyin 74-ning qolgan qismi bundan keyin ham ta'sir qilmaydi".^[24]

Oliy sudning o'n uchta sudyasi Maxfiy Kengash tarkibida ishlarni ko'rib chiqdilar. Ser Ishoq Ishoq 1936 yilda general-gubernator sifatida iste'foga chiqqanidan so'ng Oliy sudning apellyatsiya shikoyati bo'yicha sudda qatnashgan yagona sudya.^[25] Ser Garfild Barvik Maxfiy Kengash tartibiga norozilikka yo'l qo'yadigan o'zgartirish kiritilishini talab qildi;^[26] ammo u buni faqat bir marta amalga oshirdi.^[27] Murojaatlar asosan boshqa Hamdo'stlik davlatlarining qarorlari bilan bog'liq, garchi ular vaqti-vaqti bilan shtat Oliy sudining shikoyatlarini o'z ichiga olgan.^{[28][29][30][31]}

Nauru uchun apellyatsiya yurisdiksiyasi

O'zaro kelishuvga muvofiq Nauru va 1976 yil 6 sentyabrda 57-moddasining 57-moddasiga binoan Avstraliya imzoladi Nauru Konstitutsiyasi, Avstraliya Oliy sudi ilgari avstraliyalik bo'lgan suveren Nauru Respublikasi uchun apellyatsiya sudining so'nggi sudiga aylandi Millatlar Ligasi mandati. Oliy sudga shikoyatlarni ko'rib chiqish huquqi berilgan Nauru Oliy sudi jinoiy va fuqarolik ishlarida, ayrim istisnolardan tashqari; xususan, ga tegishli hech qanday ish Nauru Konstitutsiyasi Avstraliya sudi tomonidan hal qilinishi mumkin.^[40] Ushbu kelishuv bo'yicha Oliy sudga uning faoliyatining dastlabki 40 yilida jami beshta murojaat qilingan. Ammo 2017 yilda bu 13 ta murojaatga sakrab chiqdi, aksariyati boshpana izlovchilarga tegishli.^[41] Ba'zi huquqiy sharhlovchilar (shu jumladan Avstraliya qonun islohotlari bo'yicha komissiyasi^[42]) ushbu apellyatsiya yurisdiktsiyasi Oliy sudning boshqa majburiyatlari bilan noqulaylik tug'diradi va qayta ko'rib chiqilishi yoki bekor qilinishi kerak, deb ta'kidladilar.^[43] Muammolar, jumladan, Nauru qonunchiligi va odatiy amaliyotni qo'llash zarurati va Oliy sud apellyatsiya shikoyatini ko'rib chiqish uchun ta'til bermasligi kerak.^[41]

Metyu Batsiua, Nauru sobiq adliya vaziri, 2017 yil oktyabr oyida Oliy sudning qaroridan keyin Nauruan hukumati ushbu kelishuvdan norozi bo'lganini ta'kidladi.^[44] 2015 yil may oyida Nauruan parlamenti oldida bo'lib o'tgan norozilik namoyishidan so'ng 19 kishiga ayblov e'lon qilindi noqonuniy yig'ilish va boshqa fuqarolik huquqbuzarliklari. Keyinchalik Nauru Oliy sudi tuman sudi tomonidan tayinlangan jazolarni ko'paytirdi va apellyatsiya shikoyatiga sabab bo'ldi, unda Oliy sud qarorni bekor qildi.^[41][45] Ish Oliy sudga "qonunga binoan ko'rib chiqish uchun" boshqacha tuzilgan.^[45]

Nauru mustaqilligining 50 yilligi munosabati bilan Prezident Baron Vaqa parlamentga "Avstraliyaning eng yuqori sudi bilan aloqalarni davom ettirish - bu to'laqonli millat sari mantiqiy qadam va Nauruning o'z taqdirini o'zi belgilash qobiliyatiga ishonchning ifodasidir" deb e'lon qildi.^[41] Nauruan Adliya vaziri Devid Adeang Nauru-ning o'z asosini yaratishi uchun yana bir sabab sifatida Oliy sudga murojaatlarning narxini ko'rsatdi Apellyatsiya sudi mamlakatning eng yuqori sudi sifatida.^[46] Kelishuvga ko'ra, har ikki mamlakat hukumati kelishuvni 90 kunlik ogohlantirish bilan tugatishi mumkin. Nauru ushbu tanlovni bir tomonlama ravishda 2017 yil 12 dekabrda amalga oshirdi va Oliy sud vakolati 2018 yil 12 martda tugadi.^[44][47] Biroq, kelishuvning tugatilishi Oliy sud namoyishchilarning ishini qayta ko'rib chiqqandan va yana ko'paytirilgan jazo tayinlaganidan keyin ma'lum bo'lmadi. Yangi Apellyatsiya sudi hali tashkil etilmaganligi sababli, sudlanuvchilarga apellyatsiya berish imkoniyati qolmadi, bu holat chuqur adolatsiz deb tanqid qilindi.^[47]

Tarix

Saroyning kelib chiqish tarixi XIX asrning o'rtalariga borib taqaladi. Oliy sud tashkil etilgunga qadar mustamlakachilik oliy sudlaridan shikoyatlar faqat Maxfiy Kengashning Sud qo'mitasiga yuborilishi mumkin edi, u Londonga sayohat qilish uchun katta xarajatlarni talab qilgan. Shu sababli, koloniyalardagi ba'zi siyosatchilar apellyatsiya shikoyatlarini ko'rib chiqadigan koloniyalar o'rtasida sayohat qilishlari mumkin bo'lgan yangi sudni xohlashdi.

Keyingi Graf Grey Avstraliya koloniyalarini federatsiyalash bo'yicha 1846 yilgi taklif, Buyuk Britaniyaning Maxfiy Kengashining 1849 yilgi hisobotida milliy sud tashkil etilishi taklif qilingan.^[48] 1856 yilda, keyin Janubiy Avstraliya gubernatori, Richard Graves MacDonnell, ga tavsiya etilgan Janubiy Avstraliya hukumati ular va boshqa koloniyalar har bir koloniyada Oliy sudlarning murojaatlarini ko'rib chiqadigan apellyatsiya sudini tashkil etishni ko'rib chiqishlari kerak va 1860 yilda Janubiy Avstraliya parlamenti MacDonnellni boshqa koloniyalardagi hamkasblariga ushbu g'oyani ilgari surishga undovchi qonunlar qabul qildi. Biroq, faqat Viktoriya hukumati ushbu taklifni jiddiy ko'rib chiqdi.^[49]

1870 yilda koloniyalararo konferentsiyada Melburn, koloniyalararo sud g'oyasi yana ko'tarildi va keyinchalik a Qirollik komissiyasi apellyatsiya sudini tashkil etish va birlashtirish uchun variantlarni o'rganish uchun Viktoriyada tashkil etilgan ekstraditsiya koloniyalar o'rtasidagi qonunlar va boshqa shunga o'xshash masalalar. Sudni tashkil etish to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasi Komissiya tomonidan ilgari surilgan, ammo u Londonda qonun loyihasini amalga oshirishga qaratilgan har qanday jiddiy urinishlarning oldini olgan va tanqidiy munosabatda bo'lgan Maxfiy Kengashga murojaatlarni butunlay chiqarib tashlagan. federatsiya, barcha koloniyalarga ta'sir qiladigan har qanday qonunlar tomonidan qabul qilinishi kerak edi Britaniya imperatorlik parlamenti Londonda).^[49]

1880 yilda yana bir koloniyalararo konferentsiya chaqirilib, unda Avstraliyaning Apellyatsiya sudini tashkil etish taklifi ilgari surildi. Ushbu konferentsiya qat'iyroq Avstraliya sudiga ega bo'lishga qaratilgan edi. Mustamlaka Oliy sudlarining sudyalari yangi sudda bir yil muddatga xizmat qilishini va har bir koloniyadan bir vaqtning o'zida bitta sudyani tayinlashini ta'minlaydigan yana bir qonun loyihasi ishlab chiqildi. O'sha paytda, shuningdek, Avstraliyaning mustamlakalariga federatsiyaga qo'shilishni o'ylagan Yangi Zelandiya ham yangi sud ishtirokchisi bo'lishi kerak edi.^[49] Biroq, ushbu taklifda mustamlakachilarning Oliy sudlarining Maxfiy Kengashga murojaatlari saqlanib qoldi, ular ayrim koloniyalar bahslashdi va qonun loyihasi bekor qilindi.

Konstitutsiyaviy konvensiyalar

Ser Samuel Grafit, birinchi Avstraliya bosh sudyasi

The Konstitutsiyaviy konventsiyalar Avstraliya Konstitutsiyasini ishlab chiqish uchun yig'ilgan 1890-yillarning, shuningdek, federal Oliy sud g'oyasini ko'targan. Konferentsiyadagi dastlabki takliflar Melburn 1890 yil fevralda konventsiyaga olib keldi Sidney konstitutsiya loyihasini ishlab chiqqan 1891 yil mart va aprel oylarida. Loyihada Avstraliyaning Oliy sudi tashkil etilib, u nafaqat Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi singari Konstitutsiyani talqin qiladi, balki shtat Oliy sudlarining apellyatsiya sudi bo'ladi. Loyiha Maxfiy Kengashga qilingan murojaatlarni samarali ravishda olib tashladi, agar shunday bo'lsa, ularga ruxsat beradi Britaniya monarxi apellyatsiya berish uchun ruxsat berdi va konstitutsiyaviy masalalar bo'yicha murojaatlarga umuman ruxsat bermadi.

Ushbu loyiha asosan ish edi Ser Samuel Grafit,^[13] keyin Kvinslend Premer-ligasi, keyinchalik Kvinslend bosh sudyasi va Avstraliyaning birinchi bosh sudyasi. Loyihadagi sud qoidalariga boshqa muhim hissa qo'shganlar orasida Tasmaniya Bosh prokurori ham bor edi Endryu Inglis Klark, konvensiyadan oldin o'z konstitutsiyasini tayyorlagan. Inglis Klarkning eng muhim hissasi sudga konstitutsiyaviy vakolat berish va uni ta'minlash edi hokimiyatni taqsimlash; Griffitning asl formulasi, Edmund Barton va Charlz Kingston faqat parlament sud tashkil qilishi sharti bilan.^[48]

Endryu Inglis Klark, Oliy sud to'g'risidagi moddalarga taniqli hissa qo'shgan Avstraliya konstitutsiyasi.

Keyingi anjumanlarda, yilda Adelaida 1897 yilda, yilda Sidney o'sha yili va 1898 yil boshida Melburnda oldingi chaqiruvga o'zgartirishlar kiritildi. Adelaida shahrida sudning nomi Avstraliya Oliy sudidan Avstraliyaning Oliy sudiga o'zgartirildi. Ko'p odamlar, shuningdek, Maxfiy Kengashni to'liq almashtirishga qarshi yangi sudga qarshi chiqdilar: ko'plab yirik korxonalar, xususan, ingliz kompaniyalarining sho'ba korxonalari bo'lgan yoki doimiy ravishda Buyuk Britaniya bilan savdo-sotiq qilayotganlar, biznes sabablarga ko'ra mustamlakalarni Britaniya sudlarining yagona yurisdiksiyasida saqlashni afzal ko'rishgan, va konventsiyalarni shu mazmunda iltimos qildi.^[13] Maxfiy kengashning apellyatsiya shikoyatlarini olib tashlashga qarshi bo'lgan boshqa dalillar shundan iboratki, avstraliyalik sudyalar inglizlarga qaraganda sifatsizroq edi va Kengash nazoratisiz koloniyalardagi qonun ingliz qonunchiligidan farq qilishi mumkin edi.^[48] Kabi ba'zi siyosatchilar Ser Jorj Dibbs, murojaat qiluvchilarni qo'llab-quvvatladi, ammo boshqalar, shu jumladan Alfred Deakin, sud dizaynini xuddi shunday qo'llab-quvvatladi.^[13] Inglis Klark fikricha, kelishmovchilik ehtimoli yaxshi narsa, chunki qonun Avstraliya sharoitlariga mos ravishda moslashishi mumkin.^[48] Bahslarga qaramay, loyihaning sud bilan bog'liq qismlari deyarli o'zgarmadi, chunki delegatlar turli masalalarga e'tibor qaratishdi.

Loyiha koloniyalar saylovchilari tomonidan ma'qullangandan so'ng, 1899 yilda Britaniya imperatorlik parlamentining roziligi uchun Londonga olib ketilgan. Shunga qaramay, Maxfiy Kengashning murojaatlari masalasi bir qator Avstraliya va Buyuk Britaniya siyosatchilari, shu jumladan Mustamlakalar bo'yicha davlat kotibi, Jozef Chemberlen, Janubiy Avstraliyaning bosh sudyasi, Ser Samuel Way va Kvinslend bosh sudyasi, Ser Semyuel Griffit.^[17] Darhaqiqat, 1899 yil oktyabr oyida Griffit Chamberlendga ingliz vazirlaridan loyihaga o'zgartirish kiritish uchun takliflar so'rab murojaat qildi va o'zining ba'zi o'zgarishlarini taklif qildi.^[17] Darhaqiqat, bu va boshqa vakolatxonalarning ta'siri shundan iboratki, Chemberlen Britaniya hukumati tuzishi mumkin bo'lgan har qanday o'zgartirishlarni ma'qullash maqsadida ularni tasdiqlash jarayonida yordam berish uchun koloniyalardan Londonga kelishga chaqirdi; Deakin, Barton va shu jumladan delegatlar yuborildi Charlz Kingston, garchi ular hech qachon o'zgarishlarga rozi bo'lmasliklari kerak bo'lgan ko'rsatmalar ostida bo'lsa ham.^[17]

Avstraliyada ham, Buyuk Britaniyada ham qizg'in lobbichilik o'tkazgandan so'ng, imperatorlik parlamenti konstitutsiya loyihasini, 74-bo'lim bilan o'zgartirilgan bo'lsa-da, nihoyat ma'qulladi, bu ikkala tomon murosaga kelishini anglatadi: Oliy sud tomonidan murojaat qilishning umumiy huquqi bo'ladi. Maxfiy Kengash, faqat Avstraliya Parlamenti ushbu xiyobonni cheklovchi qonunlarni qabul qilishi va bundan tashqari inter se masalalar (Hamdo'stlik va davlatlarning vakolatlari chegaralari va chegaralari bilan bog'liq masalalar) huquq sifatida emas, balki Oliy sud tomonidan tasdiqlanishi kerak edi.^[17]

Sudning tashkil etilishi

Birinchi Avstraliya bosh sudyasi, Ser Semyuel Griffit, Oliy sudning birinchi majlisida sud qasamyodini qabul qiladi Banco Sudi Viktoriya Oliy sudi, 1903 yil 6-oktyabr.

Konstitutsiya imperatorlik parlamenti tomonidan qabul qilingan va 1901 yil 1-yanvardan kuchga kirgan. Ammo Oliy sud zudlik bilan tashkil etilmagan; Avstraliyaning yangi parlamenti uchun sudning tuzilishi va tartibi to'g'risida qonunlar qabul qilish zarur edi. Ba'zilari birinchi parlament a'zolari, shu jumladan Ser Jon Tez, keyinchalik Avstraliyaning etakchi huquqiy ekspertlaridan biri sudni tashkil etish to'g'risidagi qonunchilikka qarshi chiqdi. Hatto H. B. Xiggins, keyinchalik o'zi sudga tayinlangan, Maxfiy Kengash apellyatsiya shikoyati qolganida, bu kuchsiz bo'ladi va har qanday holatda federal sud uchun uni hayotga tatbiq etish uchun etarli ish yo'qligi sababli uni o'rnatishga qarshi chiqdi.^[13]

1902 yilda, keyin Bosh prokuror Alfred Deakin tanishtirdi Sud hokimiyati to'g'risidagi qonun 1902 ichida Vakillar palatasi. Deakin va Griffit qonun loyihasini 1901 yil fevral oyida ishlab chiqqan bo'lishsa-da, parlamentdagi muxoliflar tomonidan doimiy ravishda kechiktirildi va qonun loyihasining muvaffaqiyati, odatda, Deakinning ushbu qarama-qarshilikka qaramay, qonun loyihasini parlament orqali o'tkazishga bo'lgan ishtiyoqi va sa'y-harakatlari bilan bog'liq.^[48] Deakin sudni sudga maxsus tanlab olingan beshta sudyadan iborat qilishni taklif qilgan edi; muxoliflar buning o'rniga sudni o'n yil oldin Konstitutsiyaviy konventsiyalarda aytib o'tilganidek, navbat bilan navbatma navbat Oliy sudga o'tirish uchun shtatdagi Oliy sud sudyalaridan iborat bo'lishi kerak.^[50] Oxir-oqibat Deakin muxolifat, sudyalar sonini beshdan uchga qisqartirish va pensiya kabi moliyaviy imtiyozlarni bekor qilish.

Bir paytlar Deakin duch kelgan qiyinchiliklar tufayli Bosh prokuror lavozimini tark etish bilan qo'rqitdi.^[48] Hozir mashhur nutqda Deakin a ikkinchi o'qish uchun Vakillar palatasi, uch yarim soat davom etdi, unda u quyidagilarni e'lon qildi:

"Federatsiya vakolatlarni taqsimlash yo'li bilan tashkil topgan va aynan shu sud har bir hokimiyatning orbitasi va chegarasini hal qiladi ... U federal kamarning toshi deb to'g'ri nomlanadi ... Nizom turibdi va nizomda turadi - Xuddi shu soatda aytilganidek kitob. Ammo millat yashaydi, o'sadi va kengayadi, uning sharoitlari o'zgaradi, ehtiyojlari o'zgaradi va muammolari yangi yuzlar bilan namoyon bo'ladi. [Oliy sud] Konstitutsiyaning o'sishiga va Oliy sud faoliyat yuritadigan avloddan-avlodga o'zgaruvchan ehtiyojlar va sharoitlarga moslashtirilishi kerak. "^[51]

Deakinning do'sti, rassom Tom Roberts, nutqni jamoat galereyasidan tomosha qilgan, buni Deakinning "magnum opus" deb e'lon qildi.^[48] 1903 yil sud hokimiyati to'g'risidagi qonun nihoyat 1903 yil 25-avgustda qabul qilindi va dastlabki uchta sudya - bosh sudya ser Samuel Grafit va sudyalar Ser Edmund Barton va Richard O'Konnor o'sha yilning 5 oktyabrida tayinlangan. 6 oktyabr kuni sud Banco sudida birinchi yig'ilishini o'tkazdi Viktoriya Oliy sudi.

1906 yil 12-oktabrda Oliy sudning soni beshta odil sudyaga ko'paytirildi va Deakin tayinlandi H. B. Xiggins va Ishoq Ishoq Oliy sudga. 1913 yil fevralda Oliy sud yana ko'paytirildi, unga ikkita sudya qo'shildi va ularning soni etti nafarga etdi. Charlz Pauers va Albert Baturst Piddington tayinlandi. Ularning tayinlanishiga qarshi norozilik shu qadar baland ediki, Adolat Piddington 1913 yil 5-aprelda o'z o'rnini egallamasdan iste'foga chiqdi.^[52]

Sudning birinchi yillari

1928-1980 yillarda sudning uyi, sud majlisi zalida Kichik Burk ko'chasi, Melburn.

Banco sudida sudning birinchi yig'ilishidan so'ng Melburn, sud ushbu mahkamadan 1928 yilgacha, maxsus sud zali qurilgan paytgacha foydalanishda davom etdi Kichik Burke ko'chasi, yonida Viktoriya Oliy sudi sudning Melburndagi o'tiradigan joyini ta'minlagan va sud direktorini joylashtirgan ro'yxatga olish kitobi 1980 yilgacha.^[53] Sud, shuningdek, Sidneyda muntazam ravishda o'tirar edi, u erda dastlab shahar atrofidagi Jinoyat ishlari bo'yicha sudlarda joy ajratilgan Darlingxerst, 1923 yilda qo'shni eshikka maxsus sud zali qurilishidan oldin.^[54]

Jinoyat ishlari bo'yicha sudga ilova Darlingxerst, sudning Sidneydagi uyi.

Sud mamlakatning boshqa shaharlariga sayohat qildi, u erda har qanday shaharda o'zining shaxsiy inshootlari yo'q edi, lekin ulardan foydalanilgan Oliy sud binolari. Deakin sud federal sud bo'lishi uchun har xil joylarda o'tirishini nazarda tutgan edi. Sud tashkil qilinganidan ko'p o'tmay, bosh sudya Griffit shtat poytaxtlarida uchrashuvlar jadvalini tuzdi: Xobart, Tasmaniya fevralda, Brisben, Kvinslend iyun oyida, Pert, G'arbiy Avstraliya sentyabr va Adelaida, Janubiy Avstraliya oktyabrda; Aytishlaricha, Griffit ushbu jadvalni tuzgan, chunki u har bir shaharda ob-havoni eng yoqimli deb topgan yilning fasli bo'lgan. Ushbu an'ana hozirgi kungacha saqlanib kelmoqda, garchi sud majlislarining aksariyati hozirda Kanberrada bo'lib o'tmoqda.

O'tirishlar ish hajmiga bog'liq edi va shu kungacha Xobartdagi yig'ilishlar bir necha yilda bir marta bo'lib turardi. Pert, Adelaida va Brisbenda har yili bir haftagacha yillik yig'ilishlar mavjud. Davomida Katta depressiya, Melburn va Sidney tashqarisidagi yig'ilishlar xarajatlarni kamaytirish uchun to'xtatildi.

Davomida Ikkinchi jahon urushi, sud o'zgarish davriga duch keldi. Bosh sudya, Ser Jon Latham, 1940 yildan 1941 yilgacha Avstraliyaning Yaponiyadagi birinchi elchisi bo'lib ishlagan, ammo uning ushbu roldagi faoliyati Yaponiya bilan tuzilgan o'zaro yordam shartnomasi bilan cheklangan. Eksa kuchlari u Tokioga kelishidan oldin va uni boshlash bilan cheklangan edi Tinch okeani urushi.^[55] Adliya janob Ouen Dikson ham bir necha yil davomida yo'q bo'lib, u Avstraliyaning AQShdagi vaziri bo'lib ishlagan Vashington.^[56] Ser Jorj Rich Latham yo'qligida bosh sudya vazifasini bajaruvchi edi. Bu borada juda ko'p qiyin holatlar bo'lgan federal hukumat urush paytida mudofaa qudratidan foydalanish.

Urushdan keyingi davr

1952 yildan boshlab ser Ouen Dikson bosh sudya etib tayinlanishi bilan sud barqarorlik davriga kirdi. Ikkinchi Jahon Urushidan keyin sudning ish hajmi, ayniqsa 1960-yillardan boshlab, sudga bosim o'tkazib, o'sishda davom etdi.^[57] Ser Garfild Barvik, kim edi Bosh prokuror 1958 yildan 1964 yilgacha va o'sha vaqtdan 1981 yilgacha Bosh sudya Konstitutsiyaga binoan ko'proq federal sudlar tashkil etishni taklif qildi. 1976 yilda Avstraliya Federal sudi umumiy federal yurisdiktsiyaga ega bo'lgan va so'nggi yillarda tashkil etilgan Oila sudi va Federal Magistratlar sudi sudning muayyan sohalardagi ish yukini kamaytirish uchun tashkil etilgan.

1968 yilda Federal qonunlar bilan bog'liq masalalar bo'yicha Maxfiy Kengashga murojaat qilish taqiqlangan Maxfiy kengash (Apellyatsiya shikoyatlarini cheklash) to'g'risidagi qonun 1968 yil. 1975 yilda Maxfiy kengash (Oliy sudning shikoyatlari) to'g'risidagi qonun 1975 yil Oliy sudning barcha apellyatsiya yo'nalishlarini yopdi. 1986 yilda, o'tishi bilan Avstraliya qonuni ikkalasi tomonidan Buyuk Britaniya parlamenti va Avstraliya parlamenti (Avstraliya davlatlarining so'rovi va roziligi bilan), shtatlarning Oliy sudlaridan Maxfiy Kengashga to'g'ridan-to'g'ri murojaatlari ham yopilib, Oliy sud yagona apellyatsiya yo'li sifatida qoldi.

Oliy sud sudyalarining umrbod muhlati 1977 yilda tugatilgan. 1977 yil may oyida o'tkazilgan umumxalq referendumi uni tasdiqladi Konstitutsiyani o'zgartirish (sudyalarni iste'foga chiqarish) to'g'risidagi qonun (Cth), 1977 yil 29-iyulda boshlangandan so'ng Konstitutsiyaning 72-bo'limiga o'zgartish kiritdi, shu sababli o'sha paytdan boshlab tayinlangan barcha sudyalar 70 yoshga to'lganidan keyin nafaqaga chiqishi kerak.^[58][59]

The Avstraliya Oliy sudi to'g'risidagi qonun 1979 yil 1980 yil 21 aprelda boshlangan (Cth) Oliy sudga o'z ishlarini boshqarish vakolatini berdi va Adolat uchun tayinlangan malaka va tayinlash uslubini tayinladi.^[58][3]

Huquqshunoslik

Sudning huquqiy tarixi, odatda, o'sha paytdagi Bosh sudyaga murojaat qilgan holda muhokama qilinadi. Bu sud tarixini davrlarga ajratishning qulay usuli bo'lsa-da, u sudyaning ahamiyatini oshirib yuborishga intiladi va sudning boshqa a'zolarining ta'siriga va xizmat muddatiga e'tibor bermaydi; shuningdek, boshqa ijtimoiy omillar. Masalan, Isaaks J Noks sudida asosiy kuch edi, uning bosh sudya sifatida ishi esa Dikson J sudning etakchi huquqshunosiga aylandi.^[60]

Griffit sudi

Ser Ishoq Ishoq, 1906 yildan sudya va 1930–1931 yillarda bosh sudya

Birinchi Oliy sud sifatida bosh sudya Ser Samuel Grafitning sudi butun Avstraliya uchun yangi apellyatsiya sudi sifatida o'z mavqeini o'rnatishi va Avstraliya Konstitutsiyasi va federal qonunchiligini sharhlash uchun yangi printsipial tizimini ishlab chiqishi kerak edi. Griffitning o'zi sudga o'zining dastlabki yillarida, ammo tayinlangandan keyin katta ta'sir ko'rsatgan Ser Ishoq Ishoq va H. B. Xiggins 1906 yilda va Adliya asoschisi Richard O'Konnorning vafoti tufayli Griffitning ta'siri susay boshladi.^[61]

Sud Avstraliya sud ierarxiyasining yuqori qismida o'z pozitsiyasini o'rnatmoqchi edi. Yilda Deakin va Uebb (1904)^[62] Griffit buni tanqid qildi Viktoriya Oliy sudi haqida Maxfiy Kengash qaroriga rioya qilgani uchun Kanada konstitutsiyasi, Oliy sudning Avstraliya Konstitutsiyasi to'g'risidagi qaroriga rioya qilish o'rniga.^[49]

Yilda Avstraliya konstitutsiyaviy qonuni, sudning dastlabki qarorlari ta'sir ko'rsatdi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining konstitutsiyaviy qonuni. Bo'lgan holatda D'Emden - Pedder (1904),^[63] Tasmanian dasturini o'z ichiga olgan marka boji federal mansabdorning maoshiga, sud AQSh Oliy sudining ishida belgilangan asboblarning daxlsiz immuniteti doktrinasini qabul qildi. Makkullox va Merilend (1803).^[64] Ushbu doktrinada federal hukumatning Avstraliya shtatlarining qonun chiqaruvchi yoki ijro etuvchi hokimiyatiga aralashishga bo'lgan har qanday urinishi bekor bo'lganligi va aksincha ekanligi aniqlandi. Ushbu ta'limot bilan birga ta'limot edi himoyalangan davlat vakolatlari Bu shtat parlamentlari tomonidan an'anaviy ravishda amalga oshiriladigan hokimiyat sohalariga tajovuz qilmaslik uchun Avstraliya parlamentining vakolatlarini tor talqin qilish kerak degan printsipga asoslandi. Kontseptsiya kabi holatlarda ishlab chiqilgan Pitersvald va Bartli (1904),^[65] R v barger (1908)^[66] va Union Label ishi (1908).^[67]

Ikkala ta'limot birgalikda federal boshqaruv tizimiga o'tishni yumshatdi va "Avstraliya federatsiyasining tarkibiy elementlari o'rtasidagi muvozanatni saqlash orqali, ehtimol jamoatchilik kayfiyatiga mos keldi, bu bosqichda hech qanday tarzda markaziy hokimiyatni amalga oshirishga moslashtirilmadi. . "^[61] Sud Konstitutsiyaga nisbatan odatda konservativ nuqtai nazardan qaradi, 116-bo'lim (diniy erkinlikni kafolatlaydi) va 117-bo'limni (kimningdir kelib chiqishi holatiga qarab kamsitishni oldini oladi) tor sharhlarni, 1980-yillarga qadar davom etishi kerak bo'lgan sharhlarni oldi.^[61]

Sudning asl hakamlaridan ikkitasi - Griffit va ser Edmund Barton, general-gubernatorlar tomonidan tez-tez maslahatlashib turilgan, shu jumladan zaxira kuchlari.^[68] Ushbu konsultatsiya amaliyoti o'shandan beri vaqti-vaqti bilan davom etib kelmoqda.

Noks, Isaak va Gavan Duffi sudlari

Adrian Noks 1919 yil 18 oktyabrda bosh sudya bo'ldi va oradan uch oy o'tmay, sud adibi ser Edmund Barton vafot etdi va asl a'zolari qolmadi. Davrning eng muhim hodisasi bu edi Muhandislar ishi (1920),^[69] Noks davrining boshida qaror qildi. Bunday holda, zaxiradagi davlat vakolatlari doktrinalari va cholg'u asboblarining daxlsizligi daxlsizligi bekor qilindi va sud konstitutsiyaviy talqinning yangi davriga o'tdi, bunda asosiy e'tibor deyarli faqat Konstitutsiya matniga qaratiladi va uning vakolatlari Avstraliya parlamenti tobora muhim ahamiyat kasb etar edi.

Noks 1921 yilda ritsar bo'lgan, uning davrida ritsar bo'lgan yagona bosh sudya. Noks sudining dastlabki ishlarining bir qismi Birinchi Jahon Urushi oqibatlari bilan bog'liq. In Roche va Kronxaymer (1921),^[70] Sud Avstraliyaning majburiyatlarini bajarish uchun qoidalar qabul qilishga imkon beradigan federal qonunchilikni qo'llab-quvvatladi Versal shartnomasi. Ko'pchilik ishni ishni hal qildi mudofaa qudrati, lekin Xiggins bunga qaror qildi tashqi ishlar hokimiyati, tashqi ishlar vakolati Avstraliyada xalqaro shartnomani amalga oshirish uchun ishlatilishi mumkinligi to'g'risida birinchi qaror.

Ser Ishoq Ishoq sudyani tayinlash uchun ketishidan oldin qirq ikki hafta davomida bosh sudya edi Avstraliya general-gubernatori. Isaaks sudyalik davrida ko'p vaqt kasal edi va uning rasmiy rahbarligi ostida bir nechta muhim ishlar hal qilindi; aksincha, uning eng yaxshi yillari eng katta adolat sudyasi bo'lgan va ko'plab qarorlarda sudni boshqargan Noks ostida edi.^[71]

Ser Frank Gavan Daffi 1931 yildan boshlab to'rt yil davomida bosh sudya bo'lgan, garchi u ushbu lavozimga tayinlanganida 78 yoshda bo'lgan va juda ko'p ta'sir ko'rsatmagan bo'lsa-da, (bitta adolat ishlarini hisobga olmaganda) u o'sha vaqtdagi ishlarning atigi 40 foizida qatnashgan va muntazam ravishda boshqa sudyalar bilan qisqa hukmlar yoki qo'shma hukmlar berdi.^[72] Kontekstida Katta depressiya, sud olti sudyaga qisqartirildi, natijada uzoq muddatli qiymatga ega bo'lmagan ko'plab bog'liq qarorlar qabul qilindi presedent.

During this time, the court did decide several important cases, including Attorney-General (New South Wales) v Trethowan (1932),^[73] qaysi ko'rib chiqildi Yangi Janubiy Uelsning premeri Jek Lang ni bekor qilishga urinish Yangi Janubiy Uels qonunchilik kengashi, va First State Garnishee case (1932),^[74] which upheld federal legislation compelling the Lang government to repay its loans. Much of the court's other work related to legislation passed in response to the Depression.

Latham court

Jon Latham, before his appointment to the court, as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs in the Lyons hukumat.

The court under Chief Justice Ser Jon Latham, who came to the office in 1935, was punctuated by World War II. Although it dealt with cases in other areas, its most important and lasting work related to wartime legislation, and the transition back to peace following the war.^[75]

The court upheld much legislation under the mudofaa qudrati, interpreting it broadly wherever there was a connection to defence purposes, in cases such as Andrews v Howell (1941)^[76] va de Mestre v Chisholm (1944).^[77] Umuman olganda Kurtin Mehnat government was rarely successfully challenged, the court recognising the necessity that the defence power permit the federal government to govern strongly. The court also allowed the federal government to institute a national daromad solig'i sxemasi First Uniform Tax case (1942),^[78] and upheld legislation allowing the proclamation of the pasifist Yahova Shohidlari religion as a subversive organisation, in the Jehovah's Witnesses case (1943).^[79]

The court reined in the wide scope of the defence power after the war, allowing for a transitional period. It struck down several key planks of the Chifley Labor government's reconstruction program, notably an attempt to milliylashtirmoq the banks in the Bank Nationalisation case (1948),^[80] and an attempt to establish a comprehensive medical benefits scheme in the Birinchi farmatsevtika imtiyozlari ishi (1945).^[81] However the court also famously struck down Menzies Liberal government legislation banning the Avstraliya Kommunistik partiyasi ichida Kommunistik partiya ishi (1951),^[82] Latham's last major case.

Apart from the wartime cases, the Latham court also developed the jinoyatchi defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact, for example in Proudman v Dayman (1941).^[83] It also paved the way for the development of the external affairs power by upholding the implementation of an air navigation treaty in R v Burgess; Genri sobiq partiyasi (1936).^[84]

Dixon court

The bench in 1952, shortly before Chief Justice Latham's retirement. Back, left to right, Fullagar, Veb, Uilyams & Kitto. Front, left to right, Dikson, Latham & MakTiernan.

Under Chief Justice Ser Ouen Dikson, who was elevated to that role in 1952 after 23 years as a Justice, the court enjoyed its most successful period, with British judge, Rulo ustasi Lord Denning, describing the time as the court's "Golden Age".^[85] Dixon, widely regarded as Australia's greatest judge,^[86] had a commanding personal and legal influence over the court in this time, measurable in the rise in joint judgments (many of which were led by Dixon) and good relations between the Justices.^[85]

While there were fewer cases which tested the limits of federal power, probably due to the Menzies government which was firmly entrenched in its conservative phase throughout Dixon's tenure, the court did decide several important constitutional cases. Dixon led the court in firmly establishing the hokimiyatni taqsimlash uchun sud tizimi ichida Boilermakers' case (1956),^[87] and the court also upheld the continuing existence of the federal government's income tax scheme in the Second Uniform Tax case (1957).^[88]

During Dixon's time as Chief Justice, the court came to adopt several of the views that Dixon had advanced in minority opinions in years prior. In several cases, the court upheld Dixon's interpretation of 92-bo'lim (one of the most troublesome sections of the Constitution), which he regarded as guaranteeing a constitutional right to engage in interstate trade, subject to reasonable regulation. It also followed Dixon's interpretation of section 90 (which prohibits the states from exacting duties of aktsiz ), although both these interpretations were ultimately abandoned many years later.^[85]

Barwick court

Sir Garfield Barwick came to the court as Chief Justice in 1964. A significant decision of the Barwick court marked the beginning of the modern interpretation of the korporatsiyalarning kuchi, which had been interpreted narrowly since 1909. The Concrete Pipes case (1971)^[89] established that the federal parliament could exercise the power to regulate at least the trading activities of corporations, whereas earlier interpretations had allowed only the regulation of conduct or transactions with the public.

The court decided many other significant constitutional cases, including the Seas and Submerged Lands case (1975),^[90] upholding legislation asserting sovereignty over the hududiy dengiz; The Birinchidan (1975)^[91] va Ikkinchi (1977)^[92] Territory Senators' cases, which concerned whether legislation allowing for the mainland territories to be represented in the Parliament of Australia was valid; va Rassell va Rassell (1976),^[93] which concerned the validity of the Oila to'g'risidagi qonun 1975 yil. The court also decided several cases relating to the historic 1974 joint sitting of the Parliament of Australia, including Cormack v Cope (1974)^[94] va Petroleum and Minerals Authority case (1975).^[95]

The Barwick court decided several infamous cases on soliqlardan qochish va soliq to'lashdan bo'yin tovlash, almost always deciding against the taxation office. Led by Barwick himself in most judgments, the court distinguished between avoidance (legitimately minimising one's tax obligations) and evasion (illegally evading obligations). The decisions effectively nullified the anti-avoidance legislation and led to the proliferation of avoidance schemes in the 1970s, a result which drew much criticism upon the court.^[96]

Gibbs court

Ser Garri Gibbs was appointed as Chief Justice in 1981. Under his leadership, the court moved away from the legalism and conservative traditions which had characterised the Dixon and Barwick courts.^[97]

The Gibbs court made several important decisions in Avstraliya konstitutsiyaviy qonuni. It allowed the Federal Parliament to make very wide use of the external affairs power, by holding that this power could be used to implement shartnomalar into domestic law with very few adolatli chegaralar. Yilda Koovarta - Byelke-Petersen (1982)^[98] four judges to three upheld the validity of the Irqiy kamsitishlar to'g'risidagi qonun 1975 yil, although no single view had majority support. Biroq, Tasmanian Dams case (1983),^[99] a majority of the court upheld federal environmental legislation under the power.

The court also adopted a more expansive interpretation of the corporations power. In Actors Equity case (1982),^[100] the court upheld regulations which, although they did not directly regulate corporations, indirectly protected corporations. In the Tasmanian Dams case, the court indicated that it would interpret the power to uphold legislation regulating the non-trading activities of corporations, although it did not decide the case on that basis. The external affairs power and the corporations power have both been increasingly relied on by the federal government to extend its authority in recent years.^[97]

Yilda ma'muriy huquq, the court expanded on the doctrines of natural justice va protsessual adolat yilda Kioa v West (1985).^[101] Although Gibbs himself dissented on those points, he did decide that executive decision makers were obliged to take humanitarian principles into consideration. Outside of specific areas of law, the court was also involved in several cases of public significance, including the Chamberlain case (1984),^[102] haqida Lindy Chamberlain va A v Hayden (1984),^[103] concerning the botched SHUNDAYKI exercise at the Sheraton Hotel Melburnda.

Mason court

Ser Entoni Meyson became Chief Justice in 1987. The Mason court was very stable, with only one change in the bench in its eight years, the appointment of Michael McHugh keyin Sir Ronald Wilson pensiya. The court under Mason was widely regarded as the most liberal bench in the court's history.^[104]

The Mason court made many important decisions in all areas of Australian law. One of its first major cases was Koul va Uitfild (1988),^[105] concerning the troublesome 92-bo'lim, which had been interpreted inconsistently and confusingly since the beginning of the court. For the first time, the court referred to historical materials such as the debates of the Konstitutsiyaviy konventsiyalar to ascertain the purpose of the section, and the unanimous decision indicated "a willingness to overturn established doctrines and precedents perceived to be no longer working", a trend which typified the Mason court.^[106]

The most popularly significant case decided by the Mason court was the Mabo ishi (1992),^[107] in which the court found that the common law was capable of recognising ona nomi. The decision was one of the High Court's most controversial of all time and represented the tendency of the Mason court to receive "high praise and stringent criticism in equal measure."^[106] Other controversial cases included the War Crimes Act case (1991),^[108] regarding the validity of the War Crimes Act 1945; Dietrich v The Queen (1992),^[109] in which the court found that a lack of legal representation in a serious criminal case can result in an unfair trial; Sayks - Kliari (1992),^[110] regarding the disputed election of Phil Cleary; va Teohning ishi (1995),^[111] in which the court held that ratifikatsiya of a treaty by the executive could create a legitimate expectation that members of the executive would act in accordance with that treaty.

The court developed the concept of implied human rights in the Constitution in cases such as Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Hamdo'stlik (1992),^[112] Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992)^[113] va Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994),^[114] in which the court recognised an nazarda tutilgan siyosiy aloqa erkinligi arising from the nature of the Constitution in laying out a system of vakillik hukumati.

In other areas of law, the court developed doctrines of tenglik in relation to commercial law and shartnoma qonuni, in cases such as Waltons Stores v Maher (1988)^[115] va Trident General Insurance v McNiece (1988),^[116] and made significant developments in huquqbuzarlik to'g'risidagi qonun, in cases such as Rojers - Uitaker (1992)^[117] va Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994).^[118]

Brennan court

Ser Jerar Brennan succeeded Mason in 1995. In contrast to the previous court, the Brennan court had many changes in its membership despite being only three years long. The court decided many significant cases.^[119]

Yilda Ha va Yangi Janubiy Uels (1997)^[120] the court invalidated a Yangi Janubiy Uels tobacco licensing scheme, reining in the licensing scheme exception to the prohibition on states levying aktsiz duties, contained in Section 90 of the Constitution. While it did not overturn previous cases in which schemes had been upheld, it did emphasise that the states could not stray too far from the constitutional framework.

The Brennan court made a number of significant decisions in relation to the judiciary of Australia. Yilda Grollo v Palmer (1995)^[121] va Hindmarsh Island Bridge case (1998),^[122] the court developed the persona designata doctrine, and in Kable v DPP (1997),^[123] the court rejected attempts by the Yangi Janubiy Uels parlamenti to establish a system of preventative detention and found that the states do not have unlimited ability to regulate their courts, given the place of state courts within the Australian court hierarchy.

The court decided several cases relating to the implied freedom of political communication developed by the Mason court, notably Lange va Avstraliyaning Broadcasting Corporation (1997)^[124] va Duck Shooting Case (1997).^[125] It also decided several native title cases, including the controversial Wik case (1996).^[126]

Gleeson court

Myurrey Glison was appointed Chief Justice in 1998. The court under Gleeson's leadership was generally regarded as more conservative than under Mason or Brennan, favouring legalism in the tradition of the Dixon and Barwick courts. In Cross-vesting case (1999),^[127] the court struck down legislation vesting state jurisdiction in the Federal Court. Yilda Al-Kateb va Godvin (2004)^[128] a majority of the court applied a narrow interpretation of the Migratsiya to'g'risidagi qonun 1958 yil, finding that it permitted executively -imposed indefinite detention of fuqaroligi bo'lmagan shaxslar. However, the court did not entirely shy away from principle and public policy in its decisions.^[129]

Yilda Egan va Uillis (1998),^[130] the court supported the New South Wales Legislative Council's ability to suspend the Treasurer when he failed to produce documents before the Council, emphasising the purpose of the ability in facilitating mas'ul hukumat. Yilda Syu v tepalik (1999),^[131] the court recognised Australia's emergence as a sovereign independent nation, finding that the United Kingdom was a "foreign power".

The Gleeson court decided a number of important native title cases, including Yanner - Eaton (1999),^[132] G'arbiy Avstraliya - Uord (2002)^[133] va Yorta Yorta case (2002).^[134] In tort law, the court's significant decisions include Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999),^[135] haqida beparvolik actions where there is only pure economic loss as opposed to physical or mental injury, Dow Jones v Gutnick (2002),^[136] bilan bog'liq tuhmat on the Internet, and Kattanach va Melchior (2003),^[137] a noto'g'ri hayot case involving a healthy child. Yilda jinoyat qonuni, the court in R v Tang (2008)^[138] qo'llab-quvvatlandi qullik convictions against the owner of a brothel who had held several women in debt bondage after they had been trafficked Avstraliyaga.

Perhaps the Gleeson court's most significant case was among its later ones. In WorkChoices case (2006),^[139] the court finally explicitly accepted a wide reading of the corporations power, after years of gradual expansion following the Concrete Pipes case (1971).^[89]

Frantsiya sudi

Robert frantsuz was appointed Chief Justice in September 2008. The first decision handed down by the French Court was Lujans v Yarrabee Coal Company Pty Ltd (2008),^[140] a case dealing with a motor vehicle accident. One of the most notable judgments handed down by the French Court was Pape v Soliq bo'yicha komissar (2009),^[141] a constitutional law case concerning the existence of the Commonwealth's so-called "appropriation power" and the scope of its executive and taxation powers.

Kiefel court

Syuzan Kifel was appointed Chief Justice in January 2017. The Kiefel court has decided two important constitutional cases: in Braun va Tasmaniya,^[142] its members adopted a conflicting variety of approaches to the implied freedom of political communication;^[143][144] ichida esa Qayta Canavan,^[145] which attracted huge public interest,^[146] the court's unanimous decision adhered to an interpretation of Konstitutsiyaning 44-qismi according to its "ordinary and natural meaning". Yilda Wilkie v Commonwealth the Court held that expenditure for the Avstraliya nikoh qonuni pochta so'rovi had been approved by Parliament and was the collection of "statistical information" that could be conducted by the Avstraliya statistika byurosi.^[147] Yilda Pell v The Queen, a case of large public interest, the Court unanimously quashed Cardinal George Pell 's conviction of child sexual abuse and overturned the ruling of the Viktoriya apellyatsiya sudi, entering verdicts of acquittal on all charges. The Court held that the jury, "acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted."^[148]

Composition of the court

The High Court of Australia is composed of seven Justices: the Chief Justice of Australia and six other Justices. Their salaries are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, an independent statutory authority. Since 1 July 2017, the Chief Justice has received an annual salary of $584,520 and the other Justices have received $530,440.^[149][150]

Uchrashuv jarayoni

Appointments are officially made by the Governor-General in Council. In practice, appointees are nominated by the Bosh Vazir, on advice from the Cabinet, particularly from the Avstraliya bosh prokurori. For example, four Justices were appointed while Endryu Fisher was Prime Minister, but it was largely on Attorney-General Billi Xyuz ' authority that the candidates were chosen.^[151] Since 1979, the Attorney-General has been required to consult with the attorneys-general of the states and territories of Australia about appointments to the court.^[152] The process was first used in relation to the appointment of Justice Uilson, and has been generally successful, despite the occasional criticism that the states merely have a consultative, rather than a determinative, role in the selection process.^[153]

There are no qualifications for Justices in the Constitution (other than that they must be under the compulsory retirement age of 70^[154]). The High Court of Australia Act 1979 requires that appointees have been a judge of a federal, state or territory court, or that they have been enrolled as a legal practitioner for at least five years with either the High Court itself or with a state or territory Supreme Court. There are no other formal requirements.^[155]

The appointment process stands in stark contrast with the highly public selection and confirmation process for justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Three Chief Justices (Sir Adrian Knox, Sir John Latham and Sir Garfield Barwick) had previously been conservative politicians prior to their appointment, and there is frequent criticism of Barwick's intervention in the 1975 yil Avstraliya konstitutsiyaviy inqirozi, when he gave advice to Governor-General Ser Jon Kerr.^[156]

On the other side of politics, Mehnat politicians Dr H. V. Evatt QC, Ser Edvard MakTirnan va Lionel Merfi QC were also appointed to the High Court; Murphy, Attorney-General in the Whitlam government, was criticised by the conservative side at the time of his appointment but after a decade in office had risen, on occasion, to the heights of Acting Chief Justice. His reputation was gravely damaged in 1985 after an illegal police phone-tap led to him being charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, but Murphy was eventually acquitted of all charges.^[157]

Hozirgi tarkibi

Two appointments to the High Court were announced on 28 October 2020. Simon Styuard was appointed to the court on 1 December 2020, in place of the retiring Geoffrey Nettle va Jaklin Glizon will be appointed to the court on 1 March 2021, in place of the retiring Virginia Bell.^{[160][161][162]}

Dastlabki tarkibi

The first bench of the High Court: Barton, Griffith and O'Connor seated, with court officials in the background. Photo taken at the first sitting of the court on 6 October 1903.

The first three justices of the High Court were Chief Justice, Sir Samuel Griffith, Justice Sir Edmund Barton, and Justice Richard Edward O'Connor.^[163] There were a number of possible candidates for the first bench of the High Court. In addition to the eventual appointees, names which had been mentioned in the press included two future Justices of the court, Henry Higgins va Ishoq Ishoq, bilan birga Endryu Inglis Klark, Ser Jon Douner, Ser Joziyo Simon va Jorj Uayz. (Crucially, all of the above had previously served as politicians, with only Griffith and Inglis Clark possessing both political and judicial experience.) Barton and O'Connor were both members of the federal parliament and both from the government benches; indeed Barton was Bosh Vazir. Each of the eventual appointees had participated in the drafting of the Constitution and had intimate knowledge of it. All three were described as conservative and their jurisprudence was very much influenced by English law, and in relation to the Constitution, by United States law.^[164]

Expansion of composition

In 1906, at the request of the Justices, two more seats were added to the bench, with Isaacs and Higgins the appointees. After O'Connor's death in 1912, an amendment to the Sud hokimiyati to'g'risidagi qonun 1903 yil expanded the bench to seven. For most of 1930 two seats were left vacant due to monetary constraints placed on the court by the Depression. The economic downturn had also led to a reduction in litigation and consequently less work for the court. After Sir Isaac Isaacs retired in 1931, his seat was left empty, and in 1933 an amendment to the Sud qonuni officially reduced the number of seats to six. However, this led to some decisions being split three-all. Tayinlash bilan Uilyam Uebb in 1946, the number of seats returned to seven, and since then the court has had a full complement of seven Justices.^[165] 2015 yildan boshlab^[yangilash] there have been 52 Justices, twelve of whom have been Chief Justice.^[166]

Recent developments in composition

Amaldagi sudyalar Syuzan Kifel, Virginia Bell va Michelle Gordon are the third, fourth and fifth women to sit on the bench, after Justices Meri Gaudron va Syuzan Krennan. There are three women sitting concurrently on the bench, alongside four men. In 2017, Justice Kiefel became the birinchi sudya etib tayinlangan birinchi ayol.^[167]

More than half of the Justices, twenty-six, have been residents of New South Wales (with twenty-four of these graduates of Sidney yuridik fakulteti ). Thirteen have been from Victoria, eight from Queensland and four from Western Australia. No Justices have been residents of South Australia, Tasmania or any of the territories. The majority of the Justices have been from Protestant backgrounds, with a smaller number from Katolik kelib chiqishi. Janob Ishoq Ishoq was of Polish/Yahudiy background and current Justice James Edelman is also Jewish:^[168] they have been the only representatives on the Court of any other faith. Many Justices have not indicated whether they have religious views.

Maykl Kirbi was the first openly gay justice in the history of the Court; his replacement, Virginia Bell, is the first lesbian,^[169] who has been an active campaigner for gay and lesbian rights and was one of the participants in the first Sidney Gey va Lesbiyan Mardi Gras 1978 yilda.^[170]

Almost all judges on the High Court have taken silk as a Queen's Counsel (QC), King's Counsel (KC) yoki Senior Counsel (SC) before appointment. The exceptions are: Justice Ser Xayden Starke, Justices Ser Edvard MakTirnan, Sir William Webb, Sir Cyril Walsh, Michael Kirby, Robert frantsuz va James Edelman.

From the retirement of Yan Kallinan in 2007 until the appointment of Stiven Gageler in 2012, every justice of the High Court had prior judicial experience (serving on state supreme courts or the Avstraliya Federal sudi ) for the only time in its history. Although 13 justices of the Court had previously served in state, colonial or federal Parliaments, no parliamentarian has been appointed to the Court since Lionel Merfi 's appointment in 1975.

Judges' associates

The Chief Justice and each of the justices engage associates to assist them in the exercise of their judicial functions. At present, all members of the High Court engage two associates for one-year terms. In addition, the Chief Justice is assisted by an employee of the library as a legal research officer. The role of the associate is broadly equivalent to that of a qonun xodimi ning Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi. Depending on the judge, an associate's responsibilities will typically include legal research, assistance in preparation for oral arguments, ag'darish in court during oral argument, editing judgments and assisting with extrajudicial functions, such as speechwriting.^[171] Associates generally will have graduated with first class honours, at or near the top of their class, from a leading law school.^[172] Associates will typically also have research experience (and often experience working for a law firm or university or another court).^[172] Accordingly, competition for associate positions is very high with hundreds of applications being received annually.^[172]

Janob Keith Aickin, Adolat Stiven Gageler va adolat James Edelman all served as associates at the High Court of Australia to Ser Ouen Dikson, Ser Entoni Meyson va adolat Toohey navbati bilan.^[173]

Imkoniyatlar

Bino

Avstraliya Oliy sudi binosi
High Court building, viewed across Burli Griffin ko'li
Umumiy ma'lumot
Holat	Bajarildi
Turi	Court house
Arxitektura uslubi	Late Twentieth-Century Brutalist
Manzil	King Edward Tce, Parklar, Kanberra, Avstraliya poytaxti hududi
Mamlakat	Avstraliya
Koordinatalar	35 ° 17′56 ″ S 149 ° 08′08 ″ E / 35.29889°S 149.13556°E / -35.29889; 149.13556Koordinatalar: 35 ° 17′56 ″ S 149 ° 08′08 ″ E / 35.29889°S 149.13556°E / -35.29889; 149.13556
Qurilish boshlandi	1975 yil aprel (1975-04)
Ochildi	1980 yil iyun (1980-06)
Tantanali ochilish marosimi	26 May 1980; 40 yil oldin (1980-05-26) tomonidan Qirolicha Yelizaveta II
Balandligi	41 metres (135 ft)
O'lchamlari
Boshqa o'lchamlar	24-metre-high (79 ft) atrium
Texnik ma'lumotlar
Qavatlar soni	11
Loyihalash va qurish
Me'mor	Chris Kringas Feiko Bouman Hans Marelli Kolin Madigan
Arxitektura firmasi	Edwards Madigan Torzillo Briggs
Tarkibiy muhandis	Miller Milston and Ferris
Xizmatlar muhandisi	Frank Taplin and Partners (mechanical/hydraulic) Addicoat Hogarth Wilson Pty Ltd (electrical/fire) Peter R. Knowland and Associates (acoustics)
Quantity surveyor	DR Lawson and Associates
Bosh pudratchi	PDC Construction ACT Pty
Mukofotlar va sovg'alar	Canberra Medallion, Avstraliya Qirollik me'morlari instituti (1980)
Hamdo'stlik merosi ro'yxati
Rasmiy nomi	High Court of Australia, King Edward Tce, Parkes, ACT, Australia
Turi	Ro'yxatdagi joy
Mezon	A., E., F., G., H.
Belgilangan	2004 yil 22 iyun
Yo'q ma'lumotnoma.	105557
Adabiyotlar
[4]

In the 1950s, Prime Minister Robert Menzies established a plan to develop Canberra and construct other important national buildings. A 1959 plan featured a new building for the High Court on the shore of Burli Griffin ko'li, next to the location for the yangi parlament uyi va Avstraliya milliy kutubxonasi. This plan was abandoned in 1968 and the location of the Parliament was moved, later settling on the present site on Capital Hill.^{[13]:ch 4}

In March 1968, the government announced that the court would move to Canberra.^{[13]:ch 4} In 1972 an international competition was held attracting 158 entries. In 1973 the firm of Edwards Madigan Torzillo Briggs was declared the winner of the two-stage competition. Architect Chris Kringas was the Principal Designer and Director in charge working with Feiko Bouman. In March 1975, only one month before construction began, Kringas died, aged 38. Following his death, Feiko Bouman, Hans Marelli and Kolin Madigan supervised the construction of the design.^[174] The constructed building is largely identical to the 1973 competition design.

Construction began in April 1975 on the shore of Lake Burley Griffin, in the Parlament uchburchagi. The site is just to the east of the axis running between Capital Hill and the Avstraliya urush yodgorligi. The High Court building houses three courtrooms, Justices' chambers, and the Court's main registry, library, and corporate services facilities. It is an unusual and distinctive structure, built in the shafqatsiz style, and features an immense public atrium with a 24-metre-high (79 ft) roof. The neighbouring National Gallery was also designed by the firm of Edwards Madigan Torzillo and Briggs. There are similarities between the two buildings in material and style but significant differences in architectural form and spatial concept. The building was completed in 1980 and the majority of the court's sittings have been held in Canberra since then. The High Court was awarded the Canberra Medallion by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects in 1980. The building was opened by Qirolicha Yelizaveta II, on 26 May 1980. The Court and its Principal Registry were immediately transferred to the new building and the first sitting in this location took place in June 1980.^[4]

The building is primarily constructed from bush-hammered, in-situ, reinforced, off-white concrete as a monolithic structure. The bush-hammering is achieved by constructing the walls using formwork and hammering the concrete when the form work is removed. Large areas of glazing are supported on tubular steel frame structural back-ups. Careful attention has been paid to detailing and the use of controlled natural light in the courtrooms is noteworthy. Internal finishes are rich yet restrained. Flooring is aurisina stone, pirelli rubber or carpet. Wall finishes are concrete, plaster or timber panelling. Ceilings are plywood panelling, timber battened, plaster or concrete. Australian timber is used throughout the building.^[4]

Courtroom 1 is the main courtroom with an imposing timber panelled wall of red tulip oak from Queensland, 17.5 metres high. It also contains a long curved bench and bar table of jarrah timber. Blackwood panels are used in the ceiling. The Courtroom has a sound system reticulated to a room which accommodates court reporting services. It contains a woven tapestry incorporating the badges of the States and the Crest of the Commonwealth. Doors for each of the three courtrooms incorporate a special design, those of Courtroom No. 1 featuring a silvered bronze grid partly recessed and fixed into the laminated plate glass. The theme of the design is a shield, emphasising the Court's function as a protector of the Constitution and the liberties of the citizen. The door handles continue the emblematic design. Courtroom No. 2 is described as the "Working Courtroom", as it is the venue for the majority of hearings. It has similar wall panelling and fittings to No. 1 Courtroom, although the ceiling is of painted moulded plywood. Courtroom No 2 is also used for hearing applications for leave to appeal by video link. It therefore is fitted with special equipment for the transmission and reception of pictures and sound between the Courtroom and other cities in Australia. Courtroom No. 3 has been designed for cases which will be dealt with generally by a single Justice and is the smallest of the three courtrooms. It has a jury box so that a trial can be conducted on the rare occasions that such a case comes before the High Court. The Courtroom has been furnished with coachwood timber with a ceiling mainly of glass that provides a high level of natural lighting.^[4]

Specially commissioned art works complement the public hall as applied finishes or are integrated into the building's detailing. Included are the water feature designed by Robert Vudvord, murals by Yan Senbergs forming an integral part of the public hall, doors at entry to Court 1 designed by Les Kossatz va Jorj Baldessin and a wax mural by Bea Maddock in the public hall outside Courtroom 1. Photographic portraits of all Chief Justices and Justices who have sat on the Court since its inception are displayed along the wall outside Courtroom No. 1.^[4]

The High Court was added to the Hamdo'stlik merosi ro'yxati 2004 yil 22 iyunda.^[4]

The building has been subject to critical acclaim:

With its recessed and projecting forms, the building exploits the plastic characteristics of reinforced concrete. The differing expressions of each facade arise from the internal functions and the external conditions. The building was designed to read clearly from across the lake to the north. The meticulous, hand-worked surfaces of both buildings demonstrate the craft-based attitude to concrete construction shown in Madigan's architecture. This is the most successful elevation and it has been enhanced by imaginative terracing and landscaping, in particular by a generous but gentle cascade that flows beside the pedestrian path to the forecourt.

— Taylor, J. (1990). Australian Architecture since 1960. Avstraliya Qirollik me'morlari instituti. 93-102 betlar.

Onlayn

The High Court makes itself generally available to the public through its own website.^[175] Judgment Alerts, available on the Court's website and by email with free subscription, provide subscribers with notice of upcoming judgments (normally a week beforehand) and, almost immediately after the delivery of a major judgment, with a brief summary of it (normally not more than one page). All of the Court's judgments, as well as transcripts of its hearings since 2009 and other materials, are made available, free of charge, through the Avstraliya huquqiy ma'lumot instituti. The Court has recently established on its website an "eresources" page, containing for each case its name, keywords, mentions of relevant legislation and a link to the full judgment; these links go to the original text from 2000 onward, scanned texts from 1948 to 1999 and facsimiles from the Hamdo'stlik to'g'risidagi qonun hisobotlari for their first 100 volumes (1903 to 1959); there are also facsimiles of some unreported judgments (1906-2002).^[176] Since October 2013, audio-visual recordings of full-court hearings held in Canberra have been available on its website.^[177]

Galereya

• 

  The No. 1 Courtroom, used for all cases that require a full bench of seven justices^[178]

• 

  Oliy sud binosi

• 

  Entry hall

• 

  Live renaissance music and dancing at the High Court in 2019

Shuningdek qarang

• Avstraliya sud ierarxiyasi
• Sud hokimiyati to'g'risidagi qonun 1903 yil
• Avstraliya sud hokimiyati
• Avstraliya qonuni
• List of Chief Justices of Australia by time in office
• List of High Court of Australia cases
• List of Justices of the High Court of Australia
• List of law schools attended by Australian High Court Justices

Adabiyotlar

Atribut

Faqat bino

Ushbu Vikipediya maqolasi dastlab asoslangan edi Avstraliya Oliy sudi, King Edvard Tce, Parkes, ACT, Avstraliya, kirish raqami 105557 Avstraliya merosi ma'lumotlar bazasi tomonidan nashr etilgan Avstraliya Hamdo'stligi 2004 yilgacha CC-BY 4.0 litsenziya, kirish 20 may 2020 yil.

Bibliografiya

Faqat bino

• Avstraliya meros komissiyasi (1987). Milliy mulk bazasi haykal bog'lari uchun joy hisobotining reestri, Avstraliya milliy galereyasi (Nusxasi 2000 yil 20 oktyabrda nashr etilgan).
• Avstraliya meros komissiyasi (2001). Oliy sud protsessi - Milliy galereya merosini baholash bo'yicha manfaatdorlar ustaxonasi. Nashr qilingan hisobot.
• Buchanan, B. (2001). Avstraliya Oliy sudi uchastkasi va Avstraliya milliy galereyasi. Nashr etilgan hisobot Avstraliya meros komissiyasi.
• Edvards Madigan Torzillo Briggs (EMTB) International va Garri Xovard va Associates (1980 yil iyul). "Avstraliya Oliy sudi: me'morlarning bayonoti". Arxitektura Avstraliya: 41–52.CS1 tarmog'i: sana va yil (havola)
• Garnett, R .; Hyndes, D. (1992). Avstraliya poytaxti hududining merosi. Avstraliya milliy tresti. 111-115 betlar.
• Veb-sayt. www.hcourt.gov.au. Avstraliya Oliy sudi. 2001 yil.
• Xovard, X.; Buchanan, B. (1999). Kontseptsiyadan amalga oshirishga qadar - Avstraliya Oliy sudi va Avstraliya milliy galereyasini obodonlashtirishni ko'rib chiqish. nashr qilinmagan hisobot.
• Avstraliya Qirollik me'morlari instituti (1990). Yigirmanchi asrning muhim me'morchiligini ro'yxatga olish uchun ko'rsatma.
• Teylor J. (1990). 1960 yildan beri Avstraliya me'morchiligi. Avstraliya Qirollik me'morlari instituti. 93-102 betlar.

Qo'shimcha o'qish

• Burnside, Sara (2011). "Avstraliya sud tarjimai holi: o'tmishi, buguni va kelajagi". Avstraliya Siyosat va Tarix jurnali. 57 (2): 221. doi:10.1111 / j.1467-8497.2011.01593.x. ISSN  0004-9522.
• Karter, Devid J.; Jigarrang, Jeyms; Rahmani, Adel (2016). "Oliy sudni masofadan o'qish: Avstraliya Oliy sudining huquqiy mavzusi va sud faoliyatini modellashtirish mavzusi, 1903-2015" (PDF). Yangi Janubiy Uels universiteti yuridik jurnali. 39 (2): 1300. Arxivlangan asl nusxasi (PDF) 2017 yil 19 fevralda.
• Frike, Grem (1986). Oliy sud sudyalari. Hawthorn, Viktoriya: Avstraliyalik Xatchinson. ISBN  978-0-09-157150-4.

Tashqi havolalar

• Avstraliya Oliy sudi rasmiy veb-sayti
• Oliy sud hujjatli filmi, Oliy sud va uning binosi haqida qisqa hujjatli film.
• Oliy sud Hujjatli film, 1998 yil, DVD. Oliy sud majlisida, uning ishi videoyozuvlaridan oldin faqat bitta filmni suratga olishga ruxsat berildi.
• Sud hokimiyati to'g'risidagi qonun 1903 (Cth) yilda ComLaw
• Avstraliya Oliy sudining 1979 yilgi qonuni (Cth) yilda ComLaw