Langer v Cwealth of A - [1995] HCATrans 287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Registry No C2 of 1993

B e t w e e n -
ALBERT LANGER
Plaintiff
and
THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
First Defendant
AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Second Defendant
BRIAN COX
Third Defendant

BRENNAN CJ

DAWSON J
TOOHEY J
GAUDRON J
McHUGH J
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 4 OCTOBER 1995, AT 10.18 AM

_________________

BRENNAN CJ: Yes, Mr Langer.

MR LANGER: Good morning, your Honours. As indicated, there is a preliminary question first concerning the composition of the Court. Before I do that, I should apologise for the state of the documents. I have not delivered a proper outline of submissions and I have only just now got a preliminary outline which can be handed up now. I am not sure that it already has been or what. It was just being photocopied a few minutes ago. Have you received it?

BRENNAN CJ: We have not got it yet, Mr Langer?

MR LANGER: Richard Refshauge just handed me my copy. Anyway, that will arrive in a minute. As I informed the Registrar, I had, over the last couple of weeks - it was when I intended to put all materials together and have it properly bound et cetera ‑ ‑ ‑

BRENNAN CJ: Yes, we understand.

MR LANGER: ‑ ‑ ‑ but, of course, I was prepared to argue the case a couple of years ago, so I am ready to argue it now. The question reserved now before you has annexed to it a statement of claims setting out the nature of the proceedings in which the question required determination. Paragraph 12 states the following the allegation which has not been admitted by the defendant, although it has not been denied by them either. The allegation No 12 is:

The second and third defendants have since the date of the writs -

that is, for the 1993 general election -

published material based on section 329A of the Act which material is misleading and intimidating and has had, will have or is likely to have an effect on the freedom of the Election such that it will no longer be free or fair.

Urgent relief was refused because it was considered necessary ‑ ‑ ‑

BRENNAN CJ: Now, Mr Langer, we have got the case stated before us.

MR LANGER: Question reserved, your Honour.

BRENNAN CJ: Question reserved.

MR LANGER: And annexed to it is that statement of claim.

BRENNAN CJ: And that is the question we have to determine?

MR LANGER: Yes. It is just giving your Honours the background as to the proceedings it arises under. That is the reason for annexing the statement of claim, that this is the context in which your Honours are being asked to determine the question. It is not being put to you as some abstract question of law out of idle curiosity; it arises in proceedings that were invoking the original jurisdiction of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Langer v Cwealth of A and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1995] HCATrans 287
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the case of *Langer v Commonwealth of Australia*. The dispute concerned the validity of certain provisions of the *Political Broadcasts and Political Disclosures Act 1991* (Cth) (the Act), which imposed restrictions on political advertising during election periods. The applicant, Mr Langer, challenged the constitutional validity of these provisions.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Act, by limiting the ability of individuals and organisations to broadcast political messages during an election period, impermissibly infringed upon the implied freedom of political communication protected by the Australian Constitution. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the restrictions imposed by the Act were reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate purpose in a system of representative and responsible government.

The Court engaged in a detailed analysis of the implied freedom of political communication, drawing upon established jurisprudence. It affirmed that this freedom is not absolute and can be limited by laws that are reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end compatible with the system of representative and responsible government. The Court examined the purpose of the Act, which was to ensure fairness and prevent undue influence in elections, and assessed whether the restrictions imposed were proportionate to that purpose. The majority found that the restrictions, while significant, were a valid exercise of legislative power and did not unduly burden political communication.

The High Court ultimately dismissed the application, upholding the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions of the *Political Broadcasts and Political Disclosures Act 1991* (Cth).

Orders