Grollo v Bates & Ors; Howard v Bates

In the High Court of Australia, the matters of *Grollo v Bates & Ors* and *Howard v Bates* concerned applications for removal and special leave to appeal. The applicants, represented by Mr. Merkel QC and Mr. Lyon respectively, sought to address constitutional issues arising from the Commonwealth's use of powers against persons charged with offences. The respondents, the Commonwealth of Australia and others, were represented by Mr. Young QC. The second-named respondent, Ms. Bates, did not wish to make representations.

The central legal issues before the Court revolved around significant constitutional questions, particularly concerning the right to trial by jury and an accused person's entitlement not to be compelled to assist in their own prosecution. These issues were argued to be of considerable importance, as indicated by recent High Court decisions. The applicants contended that the constitutional questions were real, substantial, and permeated the entire case, necessitating removal to the High Court.

The applicants argued for removal on the grounds of widespread applicability of the Commonwealth's powers, exercised via the *Judiciary Act* and state legislation such as section 464M of the *Crimes Act* (Victoria). They submitted that these powers, which empower police to compulsorily require fingerprints of accused persons for Commonwealth offences, were enacted for specific purposes and were being accessed in a manner that raised constitutional concerns. The Court considered whether the constitutional questions would necessarily be reached, with the applicants arguing that the magistrate's purported exercise of power under the *Judiciary Act* meant that these questions were intrinsically linked to the existing order.