Street v Queensland Bar Association & Ors; In the matter of an application by Robertson

The case of *Street v Queensland Bar Association & Ors* involved an application by Alexander Whistler Street and a related matter concerning Timothy Frank Robertson. The proceedings before the High Court of Australia concerned the rules for the admission of barristers in Queensland and an application for removal pursuant to section 40(1) of relevant legislation. The parties included the applicant, the Queensland Bar Association, the Barristers' Board, and the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland, who intervened in support of the respondents.

The central legal issues before the Court revolved around the interpretation and application of sections 92 and 117 of the Australian Constitution. Specifically, the Court was asked to consider the applicability of the test laid down in *Cole v Whitfield* to the context of intercourse, and how concepts of protection could be applied to such intercourse. Further, the Court was to determine whether the relevant regulations concerning the admission of barristers constituted trade and commerce, and if their sole purpose was protection, which would render them prohibited under the *Cole v Whitfield* test. Regarding section 117, the Court was to consider whether to overrule *Henry v Boehm* and adopt a test based on the purpose or effect of substantive discrimination, rather than a literal interpretation of discrimination based on residence.

The applicant's submissions argued that the regulations in question, under both old and new rules, had the sole purpose of protection, which is a prohibited purpose under the *Cole v Whitfield* test for section 92. For section 117, the applicant contended for a broader interpretation of discrimination, suggesting that a requirement of three months' residence, as previously considered in *Henry v Boehm*, did not violate the section because it applied equally to residents and non-residents. The applicant sought to move away from the literalistic view adopted in *Henry v Boehm* towards a test focusing on substantive discrimination.