Chief Executive Officer, Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority v Director of National Parks

The Chief Executive Officer of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory concerning the criminal liability of the Director of National Parks (DNP). The dispute arose when the DNP engaged a contractor to perform construction works within a sacred site, as defined by the Northern Territory's *Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989* (NT), without obtaining the required Authority Certificate or Minister's Certificate. The Authority subsequently charged the DNP with an offence under s 34(1) of the *Sacred Sites Act*, which prohibits any person from carrying out work on or using a sacred site and specifies criminal penalties for breaches.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the DNP, a body corporate established under Commonwealth legislation, could be held criminally liable for a breach of s 34(1) of the *Sacred Sites Act*. This involved determining whether the DNP was entitled to the benefit of the presumption against the imposition of criminal liability on "the Crown," as articulated in *Cain v Doyle* (1946) 72 CLR 409, and whether this presumption was confined to bodies politic or extended to statutory corporations like the DNP. The interpretation of "person" under the *Interpretation Act 1978* (NT), which includes bodies politic and bodies corporate, was also a key consideration.

The High Court reasoned that the presumption against imposing criminal liability on the Crown, as established in *Cain v Doyle*, is not confined to bodies politic but extends to statutory corporations that perform public functions and are instrumentalities of the Crown. However, the Court found that this presumption is rebuttable and that the language and purpose of the *Sacred Sites Act* indicated a clear intention to impose criminal liability on all persons, including statutory corporations, for breaches of its provisions concerning sacred sites. The Court emphasised that the Act's protective aims necessitated a broad application of its prohibitions to ensure the preservation of sacred sites.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The High Court answered the referred question by stating that the offence and penalty prescribed by s 34(1) of the *Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989* (NT) apply to the Director of National Parks as a matter of statutory construction.