Bropho v The State of Western Australia

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of Mr Bropho against the State of Western Australia. The dispute concerned the validity of a notice issued under section 38 of the *Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972* (WA) which purported to consent to the destruction of an Aboriginal sacred site. Mr Bropho argued that the notice was invalid because it had not been issued in accordance with the requirements of the Act, specifically that it had not been given to the relevant Aboriginal people.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the notice issued under section 38 of the *Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972* (WA) was a valid exercise of the power conferred by that section. This required the Court to determine whether the notice had been given to the "relevant Aboriginal people" as mandated by the Act, and if not, what the consequences of that failure were for the validity of the notice.

The High Court held that the notice was invalid. Their Honours reasoned that the requirement to give notice to the relevant Aboriginal people was a condition precedent to the exercise of the power to consent to the destruction of a sacred site. As the notice had not been given to the relevant Aboriginal people, the purported consent was ineffective. The Court applied the principle that statutory powers must be exercised in accordance with the conditions and procedures prescribed by the statute, and that a failure to do so renders the exercise of the power invalid.

The High Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the notice issued under section 38 of the *Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972* (WA) be quashed.