Rutledge v Victoria

Rutledge sought declarations that the *Constitution Act 1975* (Vic) was not validly assented to, and that the Governor of Victoria had no power to reserve the Bill for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure. The plaintiff contended that Royal Assent could only be signified under the Royal Sign Manual, and that the assent given to the *Constitution Act 1975* was therefore invalid. The defendants, the State of Victoria and the Attorney-General for Victoria, argued that the assent was validly given. The matter came before Hayne J in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the *Constitution Act 1975* (Vic) had been validly assented to, given the manner in which assent was signified. This required the Court to determine the legal effect of the Governor of Victoria reserving the Bill for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure and the proper method by which such assent could be lawfully given.

Hayne J considered the historical context and the relevant Imperial legislation, including the *Australian States Constitution Act 1907* (Imp). His Honour concluded that the phrase "reserved for the Signification of Her Majesty's Pleasure" indicated that assent was to be given by the Sovereign personally, not by the Governor. However, the Court found that the assent to the *Constitution Act 1975* was not given in this manner. Instead, the assent was signified by the Governor, acting on the advice of his ministers, after the Bill had been reserved. The Court held that the assent given was valid, as it complied with the established constitutional practice and the relevant legislative framework.

The Court therefore gave judgment for each defendant with costs.