The latest Part of AJ Admin L includes the following articles: “Judicial review of police decisions to not investigate reported crimes: The barriers to success” – Edward Elliott; “The power of an administrative tribunal to inform itself” – Matthew Groves; and “Jurisdictional error and no-invalidity clauses at State level: Does the High Court still hold all the cards?” – Giridhar Kowtal. Also in this Part are the following sections: Work and employment; Immigration and international aspects; Casenotes; and a Book review.
The latest Part of PLR publishes the following articles: “The physics of jurisdictional error” – Steven Forrest; “Expert panels, public engagement and constitutional reform” – Paul Kildea; and “State tribunals within and without the integrated federal judicial system” – David Rowe; and the following Comments: “Anti-terrorism law reform: Now or never?” – Jessie Blackbourn; “Native title extinguishment law in the High Court” – Sean Brennan; “The constitutional role of the judge” – The Hon William Gummow AC; and “Judicial power and declarations of rights inconsistency” – The Hon Justice Steven Rares. There is also a book review and a developments section.
The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Administrative Law includes three interesting articles. The first article comes from Justice Nye Perram and examines the orthodox position that judicial review is largely to be understood as involving the correction of jurisdictional excess. The second article is by Carolyn Adams who looks at the structural integration in the office of the Australian Information Commissioner. The final article is by Tom Spencer who argues that s 75(v) jurisdictional error surpasses the sovereignty of Parliament, as the Australian form of the rule of law. There is also a Work and Employment section note: “Are APS disciplinary processes “ahead of the game”? Amendments to the APS Code of Conduct”.
The June 2012 issue of the Public Law Review publishes an edited version of the 2011 Sir Anthony Mason Lecture given by The Hon Justice Susan Kiefel AC entitled “Proportionality: A rule of reason” as well as three interesting articles: “Jurisdictional error after Kirk: Has it a future?” by The Hon Justice John Basten; “Judicial review of the administration of parliamentary elections” by Graeme Orr and “An obituary for s 25 of the Constitution” by Anne Twomey. There is also a “Comments” and “Developments” section.
The latest issue of the Australian Journal of Administrative Law includes articles discussing the importance of Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission (NSW) in the entrenchment of the jurisdiction of State Supreme Courts to review State administrative action, the tension between courts’ jurisdiction to address jurisdictional error and Parliament’s ability to expand decision makers’ jurisdiction, and the Hardiman principle as it applies to proceedings before merits review tribunals. There is also an Editorial, Casenotes, Book reviews and a Work and employment section.
The first Part for Volume 19 of the Australian Journal of Administrative Law includes articles on the obligation of public authorities to consider human rights under the Victorian Charter and the history and development of illogicality as a species of jurisdictional error at common law. This Part also includes Casenotes, Civil and Political Rights and book reviews.
By Stephen Gageler SC. The constitutionalisation of federal administrative law and the resurrection of “jurisdictional error” as its unifying principle in the last 12 to 15 years track a significant and important doctrinal development.
By Chris Finn. In Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531, the High Court has made a strong statement setting out a clear Ch III basis for supervisory judicial review of inferior courts and tribunals acting under State legislation. The corollary is that privative clauses will be of limited effect, being unable to validly exclude review for jurisdictional error.