Kruger v the Commonwealth

In Kruger v the Commonwealth, the High Court of Australia considered the validity of the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 (NT) and related regulations. The plaintiffs, who were Aboriginal people, alleged that the Ordinance and regulations were invalid on several grounds, including that they were beyond the legislative power conferred by section 122 of the Constitution, that they infringed implied constitutional principles of legal equality, freedom of movement and association, and that they authorised acts contrary to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The plaintiffs also sought damages from the Commonwealth for alleged breaches of the Constitution.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the legislative power granted by section 122 of the Constitution was restricted by various implied constitutional rights, guarantees, immunities, and freedoms, and whether a breach of such constitutional provisions by a Commonwealth officer or agent could give rise to a right of action for damages against the Commonwealth. The Court was also asked to consider the applicability of limitation periods and equitable principles to such claims.

The High Court answered the reserved questions in the negative. It held that the legislative power conferred by section 122 of the Constitution was not restricted by the implied constitutional rights, guarantees, immunities, freedoms, or provisions relied upon by the plaintiffs to invalidate the Ordinance and regulations. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Constitution does not contain any right, guarantee, immunity, freedom, or provision the breach of which by an officer or agent of the Commonwealth gives rise to a right of action for damages against the Commonwealth, distinct from rights of action in tort or for breach of contract. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims for damages for breach of constitutional rights were dismissed.