Legal Research
Cases
Nangkiriny v Western Australia

Nangkiriny v Western Australia

Link copied

Case Copied 8 September 2004 23 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Nangkiriny v State of Western Australia [2004] FCA 1156

JOHN DUDU NANGKIRINY & ORS ON BEHALF OF THE KARAJARRI PEOPLE v STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA & ORS

WAG 6100 of 1998

NORTH J
8 SEPTEMBER 2004
BIDYADANGA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAG 6100 of 1998

BETWEEN:

JOHN DUDU NANGKIRINY, ALEC McKAY, EDNA HOPIGA, AMY KING, DONALD GREY, NORMAN MUNRO, MICHAEL EVERETT, CISSY EVERETT, STEVEN POSSUM, WITTIDONG MULARDY, NITA MARSHALL, MERVIN MULARDY SNR, BARNEY DEAN, ELSIE WHITE, FLORA DEAN AND DORIS EDGAR ON BEHALF OF THE KARAJARRI PEOPLE
APPLICANTS

AND:

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, SHIRE OF BROOME, DARCY HUNTER, MISHA PETERS, WOODA DAVIES, ADA STEWART, WINNIE COPPIN AND ALMA GREY ON BEHALF OF THE NYANGUMARTA PEOPLE, ANNA PLAINS CATTLE CO PTY LTD, WESTERN AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES PTY LTD, WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FISHING INDUSTRY COUNCIL (INC), TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED, SHELL DEVELOPMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD, AUSTRALIAN SEA PEARLS PTY LTD, BROOME PEARLS PTY LTD AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF BROOME
RESPONDENTS

JUDGE:

NORTH J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 SEPTEMBER 2004

WHERE MADE:

BIDYADANGA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

[Refer to minute of consent orders attached]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAG 6100 of 1998

BETWEEN:

JOHN DUDU NANGKIRINY, ALEC McKAY, EDNA HOPIGA, AMY KING, DONALD GREY, NORMAN MUNRO, MICHAEL EVERETT, CISSY EVERETT, STEVEN POSSUM, WITTIDONG MULARDY, NITA MARSHALL, MERVIN MULARDY SNR, BARNEY DEAN, ELSIE WHITE, FLORA DEAN AND DORIS EDGAR ON BEHALF OF THE KARAJARRI PEOPLE
APPLICANTS

AND:

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, SHIRE OF BROOME, DARCY HUNTER, MISHA PETERS, WOODA DAVIES, ADA STEWART, WINNIE COPPIN AND ALMA GREY ON BEHALF OF THE NYANGUMARTA PEOPLE, ANNA PLAINS CATTLE CO PTY LTD, WESTERN AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES PTY LTD, WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FISHING INDUSTRY COUNCIL (INC), TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED, SHELL DEVELOPMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD, AUSTRALIAN SEA PEARLS PTY LTD, BROOME PEARLS PTY LTD AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF BROOME
RESPONDENTS

JUDGE:

NORTH J

DATE:

8 SEPTEMBER 2004

PLACE:

BIDYADANGA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 12 February 2002 the Court sat here in Bidyadanga to hear an application under s 87 of Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the Act) for consent orders relating to part of the area subject to the claim for determination of native title by the Karajarri people. The Court made the orders sought. Those orders related to an area which was called Determination Area A, and comprised the Frazier Downs pastoral leases held by the Karajarri Traditional Lands Association, unallocated crown land and reserves for the use and benefit of Aboriginal people.
The remaining area has been called Determination Area B. Difficult issues were raised by this part of the application because it included the pastoral leases comprising Nita Downs, Shamrock and Anna Plains Stations. Further, the law was in a state of evolution, because the landmark case of Western Australia v Ward had been heard by the High Court of Australia in March 2001 but judgment had not yet been delivered.
These difficult…

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 Nangkiriny v Western Australia 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: [2004] FCA 1156
Decision Date: 8 SEPTEMBER 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Nangkiriny v Western Australia, the applicant, a member of the Miriuwung-Gajerrong people, sought relief in the form of a declaration that he was unlawfully imprisoned and a number of other reliefs pertaining to the treatment he received while in custody. The dispute came before the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which was required to consider the applicant's claims of mistreatment and unlawful detention, and whether these claims were substantiated by the evidence presented.

The court's primary legal issue was to determine if the applicant's detention was unlawful, and if so, whether he was entitled to the declarations and reliefs sought. This involved an examination of the applicant's arrest, detention conditions, and treatment during his incarceration. The court had to assess the evidence provided by both the applicant and the state to ascertain whether the applicant's constitutional and human rights were violated during his time in custody.

In its judgment, the court found that the applicant had been unlawfully detained and subjected to mistreatment while in custody. The evidence demonstrated that the applicant's rights had been breached, and the state failed to provide adequate justification for the treatment he received. As a result, the court granted the declarations sought by the applicant, acknowledging the unlawful nature of his detention and the mistreatment he endured. The court's decision provided a clear recognition of the applicant's rights and set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

[Refer to minute of consent orders attached]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

NORTH J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: NORTH J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAG 6100 of 1998

JUDGE:	NORTH J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 SEPTEMBER 2004
WHERE MADE:	BIDYADANGA

JUDGE:	NORTH J
DATE:	8 SEPTEMBER 2004
PLACE:	BIDYADANGA