Morton v Queensland Police Service

The case of Morton v Queensland Police Service concerns the applicant's appeal against a decision that dismissed his challenge to the constitutionality of certain provisions in the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld) on the grounds of racial discrimination. The applicant was charged with possessing liquor in a restricted area, a contravention of section 168B(1) of the Liquor Act. He admitted the facts but argued that section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) invalidated section 168B. The case was initially heard by a Magistrate, who rejected the applicant's argument, and the subsequent appeal to the District Court was also dismissed. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to a higher court.

The primary legal issues in this case revolve around the interpretation of section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and whether the provisions of the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld) constitute racial discrimination. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Liquor Act infringed the applicant’s rights under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, particularly Article 5, which guarantees equal treatment before tribunals and organs administering justice. Additionally, the court considered whether the provisions of the Liquor Act were a special measure under section 8 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged that section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) is indeed broad, encompassing human rights and fundamental freedoms. However, the court found that the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld) did not infringe upon the applicant's rights under Article 5 of the Convention, as it did not discriminate on the basis of race. The court further determined that the provisions of the Liquor Act were not a special measure under section 8 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). Despite granting leave to appeal, the court ultimately dismissed the appeal, maintaining the earlier decisions.

No additional orders were made beyond those already outlined in the case summary. The leave to appeal was granted, allowing the applicant to pursue the matter further, but the appeal itself was dismissed.