Flanagan v Handcock

This case concerned a dispute between Flanagan and Handcock, heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue revolved around the interpretation and application of section 117 of the *Constitution*, which prohibits discrimination against a resident of a State by reason of their place of abode. Flanagan, a resident of New South Wales, had been convicted of an offence under Queensland legislation that imposed a higher penalty on non-residents of Queensland.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Queensland legislation, by imposing a more severe penalty on non-residents, contravened section 117 of the *Constitution*. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the distinction drawn by the legislation based on residency constituted unlawful discrimination for the purposes of that section.

The majority of the High Court, comprising McHugh and Kirby JJ, held that the Queensland legislation did indeed contravene section 117 of the *Constitution*. Their Honours reasoned that the plain meaning of section 117 prohibits discrimination based on place of abode, and the legislation's differential penalty structure directly offended this prohibition. They emphasised that the purpose of section 117 was to ensure that residents of one state were not disadvantaged compared to residents of another state simply by virtue of their interstate status. The court found that the legislation created such a disadvantage by imposing a harsher penalty on those who did not reside in Queensland, irrespective of any other factors.

Consequently, the High Court found the Queensland legislation to be invalid to the extent that it discriminated against non-residents.