Dickson v The Queen

In *Dickson v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered a constitutional law dispute concerning the potential inconsistency between a State law and a Commonwealth law. The appellant had been convicted under a Victorian law of conspiracy to steal property. The central question was whether this conviction, under State law, was rendered invalid by a Commonwealth law that criminalised conspiracy to steal property belonging to the Commonwealth, where the property in question was indeed Commonwealth property.

The High Court was required to determine whether the State law, under which the appellant was convicted, was inconsistent with the Commonwealth law. Specifically, the Court had to assess whether the operation of the State law, by convicting the appellant for an act that also constituted an offence under Commonwealth law, altered, impaired, or detracted from the effectiveness of the Commonwealth law. This involved considering the principles of direct inconsistency and the concept of a law intending to cover the field.

The Court reasoned that a direct inconsistency arises when it is impossible to obey both laws, or when a State law permits or requires something that a Commonwealth law forbids. In this instance, the Court found that the State law did not create an impossibility of obedience, nor did it permit conduct forbidden by the Commonwealth law. However, the Court held that the State law did impair or detract from the operation of the Commonwealth law. The Commonwealth law evinced an intention to exclusively regulate conspiracies involving Commonwealth property, and the existence of a parallel State offence created an unacceptable interference with this legislative purpose. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the appellant's conviction and sentence, and set aside the orders of the Victorian Court of Appeal.