Legal Research
Cases
Sharples v Arnison

Sharples v Arnison

Case [2001] QCA 518 23 November 2001

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Sharples v Arnison & Ors [2001] QCA 518

PARTIES: TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
MAJOR GENERAL PETER ARNISON
(first defendant/first respondent)
PETER DOUGLAS BEATTIE
(second defendant/second respondent)
DESMOND JOSEPH O’SHEA
(third defendant/third respondent)

FILE NO/S: Appeal No 2972 of 2001
SC No 1182 of 2001

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: General Civil Appeal
Application for leave/judicial review

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 23 November 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 29 October 2001

JUDGES: McMurdo P, McPherson and Davies JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER: Appeals dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT – STATES – whether the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1977 (Qld) is invalid – whether that Act expressly or impliedly provided for the abolition of or alteration in the office of Governor as described in s 53 Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) – whether a referendum was required to validly enact the amending Act

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – IMPERIAL, COLONIAL, STATE AND COMONWEALTH CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS – GENERALLY – MATTERS RELATING TO CREATION OF COLONIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION

Australia Act 1986 (UK), s 7, s 8, s 9, s 13(3)
Australian Constitution Act 1842; 5 & 6 Vict c 76 (Imp), s 40
Australian States Constitution Act 1907 (Imp), s 1
Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (Imp), s 4, s 7
Statute of Westminster 1931; 22 Geo 5, c 4 (UK), s 9(2)

Australia Act 1986 (Cth)
Australia (Request and Consent) Act 1986 (Cth), s 3
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth)
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (Cth), s 51(xxxviii), s 92
Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 (Cth)
Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth)

Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 (Qld), s 3
Constitution Act 1867 (Qld), s 11A, s 11B, s 53
Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934 (Qld)
Constitution Act Amendment Act 1977 (Qld)
Constitution (Office of Governor) Act 1987 (Qld), s 3(1), s 3(2), s 8(c)(i), s 14, s 15

Attorney-General for New South Wales v Trethowan (1931) 44 CLR 394, considered
Attorney-General for New South Wales v Trethowan [1932] AC 526, considered
Cameron v Kyte (1835) 3 Knapp 332; 12 ER 678, considered
Dooney v Henry (2000) 74 ALJR 1289, considered
Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales (2001) 75 ALJR 501, applied
Hazelwood v Webber (1934) 52 CLR 268, distinguished
Hennessy v Wright (1888) 21 QBD 509, considered
Musgrave v Pulido (1879) 5 App Cas 102, considered
Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen’s Association Inc v South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340, considered
R v Smithers, ex p Benson (1912) 16 CLR 99
Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1970] AC 1136, considered
Smiles v Belford (1877) 1 OAR 436, considered
Sue v Hill (1999) 199 CLR 462, considered
W R Moran Proprietary Limited v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (NSW)

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.

Continue reading Sharples v Arnison

Details

AGLC: Sharples v Arnison [2001] QCA 518
Case: [2001] QCA 518
Decision Date: 23 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sharples v Arnison involved a challenge to the validity of the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1977, which purported to amend the Constitution Act 1867 of Queensland. The plaintiff, Sharples, argued that the amending Act was invalid as it did not comply with the requirements of the Constitution Act 1867, specifically in relation to the alteration or abolition of the office of Governor as described in section 53 of that Act. The defendant, Arnison, was the Governor of Queensland at the time and sought to defend the validity of the amending Act. The matter was brought to the Queensland Supreme Court, which referred the case to the High Court for determination of the constitutional issues involved.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1977 was valid and, in particular, whether the amending process complied with the requirements of the Constitution Act 1867. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the amending Act expressly or impliedly provided for the abolition or alteration of the office of Governor as described in section 53 of the Constitution Act 1867, and whether a referendum was required to validly enact the amending Act. The court had to interpret the relevant provisions of the Constitution Act 1867 and consider the principles of constitutional law and the relationship between the Commonwealth, States, and the Crown.

The court held that the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1977 was valid and did not require a referendum to be enacted. The court found that the amending Act did not expressly or impliedly provide for the abolition or alteration of the office of Governor as described in section 53 of the Constitution Act 1867. The court further held that the Constitution Act 1867 did not require a referendum to be held in order to validly amend the Constitution Act. The court considered the historical context of the Constitution Act 1867 and the principles of constitutional law, and concluded that the amending Act was within the power of the Queensland Parliament to enact.

The High Court dismissed the appeals brought by Sharples and ordered that Arnison be paid costs. The court's decision upheld the validity of the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1977 and confirmed the power of the Queensland Parliament to amend the Constitution Act 1867 without the need for a referendum. The court's reasoning was based on a careful interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions and the principles of constitutional law, and the decision has important implications for the relationship between the Commonwealth, States, and the Crown in Australia.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals dismissed with costs

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

Sharples v Arnison [2001] QCA 518

Most Recent Citation

Gunter v Hollingworth [2002] FCA 943

Cases Citing This Decision

Planck & Planck [2024] FedCFamC1F 341
Citation 1

…of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254; [1956] HCA 10 Rutledge v Victoria (2013) 251 CLR 457; [2013] HCA 60 Sharples v Arnison [2002] 2 Qd R 444; [2001] QCA 518 Sprlyan v Wyborn [2019] WASC 227 Hobbs, Harry, Young, Stephen and McIntyre, Joe, “The Internationalisation of Pseudolaw: The Growth of Sovereign Citizen Argument…
Sprlyan v Wyborn [2019] WASC 227
Citation 2 (Para 4)

…ith the reasoning of the Queensland judges and conclude that it applies equally to the appellant's contentions in this case. [158] Sharples v Arnison [2001] QCA 518; [2002] 2 Qd R 444. [159] Lohe v Gunter [2003] QSC 150. [160] Lohe v Gunter [6] ‑ [7].…
Kosteska v Magistrate Manthey [2013] QCA 105
Citation 3

…[1999] QCA 460, cited Re Skyring’s Application (No 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 561, cited Sharples v Arnison [2002] 2 Qd R 444; [2001] QCA 518, cited Skyring v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group [1993] QCA 118, cited Skyring v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group [1994] QCA 143, cited Skyring v Commonwealth Commiss…
Kosteska v Phillips [2011] QCA 266
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…itutionality of the Drugs Misuse Act on other bases have also failed: see, for example, R v Gorton [18] and Till v Johns. [19] [11][2002] 2 Qd R 444; [2001] QCA 518. [12][1995] QCA 376. [13](1985) 59 ALJR 561. [14](1985) 60 ALJR 302. [15](1994) 68 ALJR 618. [16]Above, 619. [17]2010, Federation Press, pp 367-368.…
Van Den Hoorn v Ellis [2010] QDC 451
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…1867 (Qld): at [14]. As the Court there unanimously remarked, any such argument so agitated had been previously rejected in Sharples v Arnison & Ors [2001] QCA 518: also at [14].…
Clampett v Wensley [2009] QCA 277
Citation 6

…) 58 ALR 629, cited Rudolphy v Lightfoot (1999) 197 CLR 500; [1999] HCA 61, cited Sharples v Arnison [2002] 2 Qd R 444; [2001] QCA 518, cited Skyring v Electoral Commission of Queensland [2001] QSC 080, cited COUNSEL: The appellant appeared on his own behalf A Horneman-Wren for the first and second respondents M…
Clampett v Wensley [2009] QSC 164
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…ustice and Attorney-General of Queensland, ex parte Alan George Skyring Supreme Court of Queensland, 17 February 1986, unreported; Sharples v Arnison [2001] QCA 518 at [24]-[25]; and Clampett v Hill [2007] QCA 394. The arguments are entirely without merit and there is no utility in re litigating them…
Clampett v Hill [2007] QCA 394
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…nt he seeks to advance has been agitated previously in this Court by persons without legal representation, and rejected. See Sharples v Arnison & Ors [2001] QCA 518, Skyring v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor [2001] QSC 080 and Lohe v Gunter [2003] QSC 150.…
Kelly v Campbell [2002] FCA 1125
Citation 9 (Para 11)

…complaint about the effect secured by the Queensland Request Act process lies in the realm of politics, not law. Sharples v Arnison [2001] QCA 518, a unanimous decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal, in litigation brought by Mr Kelly before he adopted his present name, makes this clear. Even if I thought this…
Gunter v Hollingworth [2002] FCA 943
Citation 10 (Para 24)

…nd, did not operate so as to abolish the office of Governor of Queensland, nor diminish the powers attaching to that office: Sharples v Arnison & Ors [2001] QCA 518 at [14], [15], [21], [26], [29]; Skyring v Crown Solicitor [2001] QSC 350; Skyring v Electoral Commission of Queensland [2001] QSC 080; Sharples v Ar…
R v Essenberg [2002] QCA 4
Citation 11

…s a Court of Appeal or as single Judges. The most recent of those decisions is one entitled Sharples v. Major General Peter Arnison, Beattie & O'Shea [2001] QCA 518, in which judgment was delivered in this Court on the 23rd of November 2001. We were told that Mr Sharples, as one might expect, has applied for spec…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Skyring v Crown Solicitor [2001] QSC 350
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…01). Sharples v Arnison & Ors [2001] QCA 274, 16 July 2001), which concerned the costs of this application before Ambrose J; and Skyring v Lohe [2001] QSC 350, Phillippides J; 27 Sept 2001). In view of the consistent course of judicial opinion on the subject in this State, there is no rational justification for t…
Yougarla v Western Australia [2001] HCA 47
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…till remains an open question whether colonial legislation is excluded by an imperial statute that covers the field: see Yougarla v Western Australia (2001) 75 ALJR 1316, 1321. If, however, s 40 of the Australian Constitutions Act 1842 already extended to and applied in Queensland as an imperial Act of paramount force…
Sharples v Arnison [2001] QCA 274
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…ns in the Supreme Court. See Skyring v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor [2001] QSC 280, Muir J; 17 May 2001). Sharples v Arnison & Ors [2001] QCA 274, 16 July 2001), which concerned the costs of this application before Ambrose J; and Skyring v Lohe [2001] QSC 350, Phillippides J; 27 Sept 2001). In view o…
Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales [2001] HCA 7
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…lant’s passing reliance on Magna Carta, I need do no more than refer to the decision of the High Court in Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales (2001) 75 ALJR 501. As to the extent of the power to make laws for the peace, order (or welfare) and good government of a territory, the authoritative exposition of the l…
Dooney v Henry [2000] HCA 44
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…ty under that Act to issue the Letters Patent to the Governor that were published in Queensland on 8 March 1986. See Dooney v Henry (2000) 74 ALJR 1289, 1295.…
Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…e would have sufficed for that purpose; but, out of an abundance of caution, legislation was also sought and passed in the United Kingdom. Sue v Hill (1999) 199 CLR 462, 491.…
Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen's Association Inc v South Australia [1989] HCA 49
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…the legislative process is itself constitutionally prohibited. See also Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen’s Association Inc v South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340. As an alternative, the appellant submits that in 1986 the United Kingdom had became a “foreign power”, whose Parliament possessed no legislative power…
Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King [1988] HCA 55
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…a territory, the authoritative exposition of the law of Australia on that subject is to be found in Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1, 9-10, and Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales (2001 75 ALJR 501, 503. The decision of the English Court of Appeal in R (Bancoult) v Secretary of…
Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation v W R Moran Pty Ltd [1939] HCA 27
Citation 9 (Para 1)

…he referendum contemplated by s 53(1). The decision in W R Moran Proprietary Limited v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) [1940] AC 838, affirming (1939) 61 CLR 735, is, however, authority that such a legislative scheme is not illegitimate or invalid, provided, of course that, as is the case here, no step in the…
Hazelwood v Webber [1934] HCA 62
Citation 10 (Para 1)

…cally re-enacting an English statute ordinarily has the effect of impliedly repealing it if the two are in the same terms. See Hazelwood v Webber (1934) 52 CLR 268, 275-276; but the statute in that instance, which was the Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774, was one that was received as part of the general law of…
Attorney-General (NSW) v Trethowan [1931] HCA 3
Citation 11 (Para 1)

…or constitutional validity of that device had been established by the decision in Attorney‑General for New South Wales v Trethowan (1931) 44 CLR 394, affirmed by the Privy Council at [1932] AC 526. It was well known and understood as a procedure for imparting rigidity to certain provisions of a constitution which,…
R v Smithers; Ex parte Benson [1912] HCA 96
Citation 12 (Para 1)

…t provision in 1987 is, I consider, also explicable by reference to s 92 of the Australian Constitution and the decision in R v Smithers, ex p Benson (1912) 16 CLR 99. On any view of it, the royal prerogative of mercy was not lawfully exercisable subject to a condition of the kind in question, and the omission in s…
Musgrave v Pulido (Jamaica) [1879] UKPC 67
Citation 13 (Para 1)

…ion and is limited to the powers expressly or impliedly entrusted to him. See Cameron v Kyte (1835) 3 Knapp 332, 343-344; 12 ER 678, 682-683; and Musgrave v Pulido (1879) 5 App Cas 102, 109-111. The early practice, which survived pretty well to the end of the imperial period, was to issue to a royal governor a commission,…
Supreme Court. See Skyring v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor [2001] QSC 280
Citation 14 (Para 1)

…or indirectly and with the same result, on a number of occasions in the Supreme Court. See Skyring v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor [2001] QSC 280, Muir J; 17 May 2001). Sharples v Arnison & Ors [2001] QCA 274, 16 July 2001), which concerned the costs of this application before Ambrose J; and Skyring…
[1970] AC 1136 [1970] AC 1136
Citation 15 (Para 1)

…g only the royal power of disallowance or repeal after their enactment. See Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1970] AC 1136, 1157; and Winfat Enterprise (HK) Co Ltd v Attorney‑General [1984] HKLR 32, 48‑50; affirmed [1985] AC 733, holding that colonial legislation was not invalidated by…
[1940] AC 838 [1940] AC 838
Citation 16 (Para 1)

…t having the benefit of the referendum contemplated by s 53(1). The decision in W R Moran Proprietary Limited v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) [1940] AC 838, affirming (1939) 61 CLR 735, is, however, authority that such a legislative scheme is not illegitimate or invalid, provided, of course that, as is t…
[1932] AC 526 [1932] AC 526
Citation 17 (Para 1)

…established by the decision in Attorney‑General for New South Wales v Trethowan (1931) 44 CLR 394, affirmed by the Privy Council at [1932] AC 526. It was well known and understood as a procedure for imparting rigidity to certain provisions of a constitution which, like that of Queensland, was, apart from imperia…
[1985] AC 733 [1985] AC 733
Citation 18 (Para 1)

…ney-General of Hong Kong [1970] AC 1136, 1157; and Winfat Enterprise (HK) Co Ltd v Attorney‑General [1984] HKLR 32, 48‑50; affirmed [1985] AC 733, holding that colonial legislation was not invalidated by the Governor’s failure to conform to instructions requiring him to reserve it for royal assent.…
[1920] AC 691 [1920] AC 691
Citation 19 (Para 1)

…stitution which, like that of Queensland, was, apart from imperial statutes, otherwise completely flexible. See McCawley v The King [1920] AC 691.…
Campbell v Hall (1774) 1 Cowp 204
Citation 20 (Para 1)

…s constituted. There is still, it seems, a difference of opinion whether royal instructions had the force of law; but, ever since the decision in Campbell v Hall (1774) Lofft 655; 98 ER 848, the view that they took effect as law cannot prevail in a colony or State with representative government over which the crown had,…
Hennessy v Wright (1888) 21 QBD 509
Citation 21 (Para 1)

…lapsed on the death of the sovereign. By contrast, instructions, which were informal and intended to be confidential (see Hennessy v Wright (1888) 21 QBD 509), could be varied or withdrawn at any time.…
[2001] 2 WLR 1219 [2001] 2 WLR 1219
Citation 22 (Para 1)

…Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales (2001 75 ALJR 501, 503. The decision of the English Court of Appeal in R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State [2001] 2 WLR 1219, if not inconsistent with the Australian authorities, was concerned with an exercise of legislative power that was quite unlike anything involved in th…
Cameron v Kyte (1835) 3 Knapp 332
Citation 23 (Para 1)

…d territory, whose authority derives from his commission and is limited to the powers expressly or impliedly entrusted to him. See Cameron v Kyte (1835) 3 Knapp 332, 343-344; 12 ER 678, 682-683; and Musgrave v Pulido (1879) 5 App Cas 102, 109-111. The early practice, which survived pretty well to the end of the imper…
Musgrave v Pulido (1879) 5 App Cas 102
Citation 24 (Para 1)

…to the powers expressly or impliedly entrusted to him. See Cameron v Kyte (1835) 3 Knapp 332, 343-344; 12 ER 678, 682-683; and Musgrave v Pulido (1879) 5 App Cas 102, 109-111. The early practice, which survived pretty well to the end of the imperial period, was to issue to a royal governor a commission, usually in the…
Cameron v Kyte 12 ER 678
Citation 25 (Para 1)

…derives from his commission and is limited to the powers expressly or impliedly entrusted to him. See Cameron v Kyte (1835) 3 Knapp 332, 343-344; 12 ER 678, 682-683; and Musgrave v Pulido (1879) 5 App Cas 102, 109-111. The early practice, which survived pretty well to the end of the imperial period, was to i…
Campbell v Hall 98 ER 848
Citation 26 (Para 1)

…seems, a difference of opinion whether royal instructions had the force of law; but, ever since the decision in Campbell v Hall (1774) Lofft 655; 98 ER 848, the view that they took effect as law cannot prevail in a colony or State with representative government over which the crown had, by granting a constit…

Legislation Cited

Australia Act 1986 (Cth) 7
4 mentions (from Para 1)
Constitution (Office of Governor) Act 1987 (Qld) 3(1)
3 mentions (from Para 1)
Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 (TAS) 3
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Australian States Constitution Act 1907 (Imp) 1
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd 4
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 c.63 4
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) 11A
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Australian Constitutions Act 1842 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Australian Courts Act 1828 (Imp)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Constitution Act Amendment Act 1977 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Constitution of Australia (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Dillon v Baltic Shipping Company
1 mention (from Para 1)
Elections Act 1915 (Qld)
1 mention
Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Extradition Act 1988 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 (c.78)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	Sharples v Arnison & Ors [2001] QCA 518
PARTIES:	TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES (plaintiff/appellant) v MAJOR GENERAL PETER ARNISON (first defendant/first respondent) PETER DOUGLAS BEATTIE (second defendant/second respondent) DESMOND JOSEPH O’SHEA (third defendant/third respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 2972 of 2001 SC No 1182 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal Application for leave/judicial review
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 November 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 October 2001
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, McPherson and Davies JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Appeals dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT – STATES – whether the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1977 (Qld) is invalid – whether that Act expressly or impliedly provided for the abolition of or alteration in the office of Governor as described in s 53 Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) – whether a referendum was required to validly enact the amending Act CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – IMPERIAL, COLONIAL, STATE AND COMONWEALTH CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS – GENERALLY – MATTERS RELATING TO CREATION OF COLONIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION Australia Act 1986 (UK), s 7, s 8, s 9, s 13(3) Australian Constitution Act 1842; 5 & 6 Vict c 76 (Imp), s 40 Australian States Constitution Act 1907 (Imp), s 1 Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (Imp), s 4, s 7 Statute of Westminster 1931; 22 Geo 5, c 4 (UK), s 9(2) Australia Act 1986 (Cth) Australia (Request and Consent) Act 1986 (Cth), s 3 Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (Cth), s 51(xxxviii), s 92 Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 (Cth) Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth) Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 (Qld), s 3 Constitution Act 1867 (Qld), s 11A, s 11B, s 53 Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934 (Qld) Constitution Act Amendment Act 1977 (Qld) Constitution (Office of Governor) Act 1987 (Qld), s 3(1), s 3(2), s 8(c)(i), s 14, s 15 Attorney-General for New South Wales v Trethowan (1931) 44 CLR 394, considered Attorney-General for New South Wales v Trethowan [1932] AC 526, considered Cameron v Kyte (1835) 3 Knapp 332; 12 ER 678, considered Dooney v Henry (2000) 74 ALJR 1289, considered Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales (2001) 75 ALJR 501, applied Hazelwood v Webber (1934) 52 CLR 268, distinguished Hennessy v Wright (1888) 21 QBD 509, considered Musgrave v Pulido (1879) 5 App Cas 102, considered Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen’s Association Inc v South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340, considered R v Smithers, ex p Benson (1912) 16 CLR 99 Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1970] AC 1136, considered Smiles v Belford (1877) 1 OAR 436, considered Sue v Hill (1999) 199 CLR 462, considered W R Moran Proprietary Limited v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (NSW)