Crimes (Amendment) Act (No 3) 1985 (ACT)

In the case of the Crimes (Amendment) Act (No 3) 1985 (ACT), the parties involved were the Australian Capital Territory, the respondent, and the appellant, a private individual. The nature of the dispute was the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance (No 3) 1985 (ACT), which amended the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) as it applied to the ACT. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the Court were whether certain provisions of the Ordinance were inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore invalid, specifically regarding the amendment of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) as it applied to the ACT without the consent of the Parliament of New South Wales. The Court had to determine if the Ordinance was an "Act" within the meaning of section 109 of the Constitution and whether the ACT was bound by the decision in the Second Territory Cases.

The Court held that the Ordinance was not an "Act" within the meaning of section 109 of the Constitution and therefore not subject to the doctrine of inconsistency. The Court found that the ACT was not bound by the decision in the Second Territory Cases as it was a separate jurisdiction with its own legislative powers. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Ordinance was valid and consistent with the Constitution.

As a result of the Court's decision, the provisions of the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance (No 3) 1985 (ACT) were deemed valid and effective. The ACT was not required to obtain the consent of the Parliament of New South Wales for the amendment of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) as it applied to the ACT.