Legal Research
Cases
R v Toohey; Ex parte Attorney-General (NT)

R v Toohey; Ex parte Attorney-General (NT)

Link copied

Case Copied 6 February 1980 33 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., Stephen, Mason, Murphy, Aickin and Wilson JJ.

THE QUEEN v. TOOHEY; Ex parte ATTORNEY-GENERAL (N.T.)

(1980) 145 CLR 374

6 February 1980

Aboriginal Lands

Aboriginal Lands—Traditional land claims—Alienated Crown land held on behalf of Aboriginals—Land held by Aboriginal Land Fund Commission under pastoral lease from Crown—Whether held "on behalf of" Aboriginals—Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth), ss. 3 "Aboriginal", 50 (1) (a)—Aboriginal Land Fund Act 1974 (Cth), ss. 3 "Aboriginal", 19, 20, 21.

Decisions

1980, February 6.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. Part V of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) ("the Act") sets up an Aboriginal Land Commissioner (s. 49). (at p378)

2. Section 50 (1) of the Act provides, so far as presently relevant, as follows:
"The functions of the Commissioner are -
(a) on an application being made to the Commissioner by or on behalf of Aboriginals claiming to have a traditional land claim to an area of land, being 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 -
(i) to ascertain whether those Aboriginals or any other Aboriginals are the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land; and
(ii) to report his findings to the Minister and to the Minister for the Northern Territory, and, where he finds that there are Aboriginals who are the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land, to make recommendations to the Minister for the granting of the land or any part of the land in accordance with sections 11 and 12;
(b) to inquire into the likely extent of traditional land claims by Aboriginals to alienated Crown land and to report to the Minister and to the Minister for the Northern Territory, from time to time, the results of his inquiries;
(c) to establish and maintain a register of the traditional land claims referred to in paragraph (b);"
For the purposes of the Act (s. 3) -
"'Aboriginal' means a person who is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia;
'Aboriginal land' means - (a) land held by a Land Trust for an estate in fee simple; or (b) land the subject of a deed of grant held in escrow by a Land Council;
'alienated Crown land' means Crown land in which a person (other than the Crown) has an estate or interest, but does not include land in a town;
'Crown Land' means land in the Northern Territory that has not been alienated from the Crown by a grant of an estate in fee simple in the land, or land that has been so alienated but has been resumed by, or has reverted to or been acquired by, the Crown, but does not include -
(a) land set apart for, or dedicated to, a public purpose under the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 or under any other Act; or (b) land the subject of a deed 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 R v Toohey; Ex parte Attorney-General (NT) 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: [1980] HCA 2
Decision Date: 6 February 1980

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an application by the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory for a writ of prohibition against the Northern Territory Land Rights Commission and its chairman, Mr. Toohey. The Attorney-General sought to prevent the Commission from proceeding with an inquiry into the traditional ownership of certain Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, arguing that the Commission lacked the necessary jurisdiction to conduct such an inquiry.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Northern Territory Land Rights Commission possessed the constitutional or statutory authority to investigate and determine claims of traditional Aboriginal ownership over land within the Northern Territory, particularly in light of the Northern Territory's self-government legislation. The Court was required to interpret the scope of the Commission's powers and the extent to which the Commonwealth's legislative authority in relation to Aboriginal land rights might be affected by the Northern Territory's legislative autonomy.

The Court ultimately held that the Northern Territory Land Rights Commission did have the power to conduct the inquiry. The majority reasoned that the Northern Territory Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Act 1978 (Cth) did not extinguish the Commonwealth's power to legislate with respect to Aboriginal land rights, and that the Northern Territory Land Rights Act 1978 (NT) did not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Northern Territory to determine such claims. The Court emphasised that the Commonwealth retained a paramount interest in ensuring the protection of Aboriginal land rights, and that the Commission's inquiry was a legitimate exercise of its statutory mandate. The application for prohibition was dismissed.

Orders