Sampi v Western Australia (No 3) - [2005] FCA 1716

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sampi v State of Western Australia (No 3) [2005] FCA 1716
ABORIGINES – native title determination – final determination following contested proceedings – determination covering mainland area, offshore intertidal zone and adjacent reefs and islets
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
Sampi v State of Western Australia [2005] FCA 777 cited
Sampi v State of Western Australia (No 2) [2005] FCA 1567 cited
PAUL SAMPI AND OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE BARDI AND JAWI PEOPLE v THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
WAD 49 OF 1998 AND WAD 6001 of 2004
FRENCH J
30 NOVEMBER 2005
ONE ARM POINT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAD 49 OF 1998
AND
WAD 6001 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

PAUL SAMPI AND OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE BARDI & JAWI PEOPLE
APPLICANT

AND:

STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FRENCH J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 NOVEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

ONE ARM POINT

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
See Attachment 1 at the back of these reasons.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAD 49 OF 1998
AND
WAD 6001 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

PAUL SAMPI AND OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE BARDI & JAWI PEOPLE
APPLICANT

AND:

STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FRENCH J

DATE:

30 NOVEMBER 2005

PLACE:

ONE ARM POINT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ON DETERMINATION OF NATIVE TITLE

On 10 June 2005 I published reasons for judgment on the application of the Bardi and Jawi People for a native title determination over their traditional lands on and around the Dampier Peninsula – Sampi v State of Western Australia [2005] FCA 777. I found that native title existed and could be recognised on the mainland part of the areas covered by the application. I also found that native title rights and interests existed in the intertidal zone and on reefs adjacent to it which were exposed at least at low tide. Orders were made requiring the applicants to file and serve a draft determination to give effect to the reasons for judgment. A related application, WAD 6001 of 2004, for a native title determination with respect to Brue Reef was dismissed.
On 4 November 2005 I published a draft determination based on a draft submitted by the applicants and variations to it which were proposed by the other parties. In accordance with the reasons for judgment then published, the hearing was adjourned to enable pronouncement of a formal determination on country in accordance with the terms of the determination which was annexed to the reasons – Sampi v State of Western Australia (No 2) [2005] FCA 1567. The parties were given leave to propose drafting changes to the terms of the determination set out in that judgment.
Subsequently it was pointed out that, in light of the findings on the Brue Reef application, there should have been incorporated in the determination…

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 Sampi v Western Australia (No 3) 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: [2005] FCA 1716
Decision Date: 30 NOVEMBER 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sampi v Western Australia (No 3) involved the determination of native title claims by the Sampi people over a mainland area, the offshore intertidal zone, and adjacent reefs and islets within Western Australia. The dispute was lodged with the Federal Court of Australia and contested by the state government. The court was tasked with assessing whether the Sampi people held traditional rights and interests in the claimed areas, and if so, to what extent these rights should be recognised under Australian law.

The central legal issues addressed by the court included the nature and extent of the traditional rights and interests held by the Sampi people, the historical continuity of those rights, and the extent to which they survived the acquisition of radical title by the Crown. The court also had to consider whether the Sampi people's connection to the land was sufficiently strong to warrant the granting of native title rights over the contested areas.

The court's reasoning was thorough, examining both the factual and legal aspects of the case. It concluded that the Sampi people did indeed hold native title over the mainland area and the offshore intertidal zone, but not over the adjacent reefs and islets. The court found that the traditional rights and interests of the Sampi people were historically continuous and had not been extinguished by the Crown's acquisition of radical title. The evidence presented demonstrated a strong and enduring connection to the land, which was sufficient to warrant recognition under the Native Title Act 1993. The final determination recognised the Sampi people's native title rights over the mainland area and the intertidal zone, providing a legal framework for their continued use and management of these areas.

The final orders of the court are detailed in Attachment 1, which outlines the specific rights and limitations associated with the recognised native title areas. This decision reinforces the importance of recognising and protecting the traditional rights and interests of Indigenous peoples in Australia.

Orders

Orders of the court

See Attachment 1 at the back of these reasons.

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

FRENCH J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FRENCH J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAD 49 OF 1998 AND WAD 6001 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	PAUL SAMPI AND OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE BARDI & JAWI PEOPLE APPLICANT
AND:	STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	FRENCH J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 NOVEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	ONE ARM POINT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAD 49 OF 1998 AND WAD 6001 OF 2004

JUDGE:	FRENCH J
DATE:	30 NOVEMBER 2005
PLACE:	ONE ARM POINT