Legal Research
Cases
R v Kearney; Ex parte Jurlama

R v Kearney; Ex parte Jurlama

Link copied

Case Copied 23 March 1984 12 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gibbs C.J., Murphy, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ.

THE QUEEN v. KEARNEY; Ex parte JURLAMA

(1984) 158 CLR 426

23 March 1984

Aboriginal Lands

Aboriginal Lands—Traditional land claim—Claim for part of traditionally owned land—Sacred sites located outside area claimed—Whether claim competent—Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth). ss. 3(1) "traditional land claim". 50(1)(a).

Decisions

1984, March 23.
The following written judgments were delivered: -
GIBBS C.J. This application for a writ of mandamus directed to the Aboriginal Land Commissioner raises for decision a narrow question concerning the construction of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) ("the Act"). (at p430)

2. On 26 February 1979 the Central Land Council, an Aboriginal Land Council established under s. 21 of the Act, lodged an application under the Act on behalf of a number of Aboriginals claiming to have a traditional land claim to an area of land at Daguragu in the Northern Territory. The bulk of the land claimed was alienated Crown land in which all estates and interests not held by the Crown were held by, or on behalf of, Aboriginals, although some of it was unalienated Crown land. It is convenient to refer to the whole area in respect of which the claim was made as "the claim area". The claim was made under s. 50 of the Act, and was made on behalf of the Gurindji people, whose members belong to twelve local descent groups. The present matter concerns Group 11, the members of which made a claim in respect of a small area of land in the shape of a triangle in the south-western corner of the claim area. The triangular section is bounded on the north-east by the Victoria River which intersects the western and southern boundaries of the claim area. (at p430)

3. The traditional country of Group 11 of the Gurindji lies to the south of the Victoria River, and most of it is outside the claim area. The triangular section forms only a small part of the land traditionally owned (in the sense suggested by the definition of "traditional Aboriginal owner" in s. 3(1) of the Act, to which I shall later refer) by Group 11. The boundary of the claim area bears no relation to Aboriginal traditions, but is dictated by the fact that s. 50(1)(a) of the Act allows an application to be made only in respect of unalienated Crown land or alienated Crown land in which all estates and interests not held by the Crown are held by, or on behalf of, Aboriginals; it therefore brings about an arbitrary division of the land traditionally owned by Group 11. On the traditionally owned land outside the claim area, and to the north-west, south and south-west of the triangular section, were a number of sites of the kind referred to in the definition of "tradional Aboriginal owners" in s. 3(1) of the Act. There were, however, no such sites on the triangular section itself. The…

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 R v Kearney; Ex parte Jurlama 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: [1984] HCA 14
Decision Date: 23 March 1984

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an application for a writ of prohibition brought by Jurlama (the applicant) against R. Kearney (the respondent), who was the stipendiary magistrate presiding in the Northern Territory. The dispute concerned the validity of certain proceedings before the magistrate, specifically relating to the apprehension and committal of the applicant for trial.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the magistrate had jurisdiction to proceed with the committal hearing. This question turned on whether the applicant had been lawfully arrested and brought before the court, particularly in light of the circumstances surrounding his apprehension in a remote area of the Northern Territory and the subsequent procedures followed. The Court was required to determine if the arrest and detention complied with the relevant provisions of Northern Territory law and, by extension, the common law principles governing lawful arrest and the exercise of magisterial jurisdiction.

The Court ultimately held that the arrest of the applicant was unlawful. This conclusion was based on the finding that the arresting officers lacked the necessary authority to arrest the applicant in the manner they did, and that the subsequent detention and committal proceedings were therefore vitiated by this initial illegality. The Court applied principles of common law relating to arrest and the requirement for lawful authority, emphasizing that jurisdiction cannot be founded upon an unlawful apprehension.

Consequently, the High Court made absolute the order nisi for a writ of prohibition, quashing the committal proceedings.

Orders