Street v Queensland Bar Association & Ors; Street v Queensland Bar Association & Ors; In the Matter of Robertson

These proceedings involved an application for special leave to appeal and a stated case before the High Court of Australia. The primary applicant, Alexander Whistler Street, sought to challenge decisions concerning his admission to the Bar in Queensland. He was joined by Timothy Frank Robertson, who also had matters before the Court. The respondents included the Queensland Bar Association, the Queensland Barristers Board, and the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland. The Commonwealth Attorney-General and the Attorneys-General for Western Australia and South Australia intervened in the proceedings.

The central legal issues before the Court concerned the interpretation and application of provisions of the Australian Constitution, specifically section 92, which guarantees freedom of interstate trade, commerce, and intercourse, and section 117, which prohibits discrimination against residents of other States. The Court was required to determine whether the rules governing admission to the Bar in Queensland, as they applied to Mr Street and Mr Robertson, were consistent with these constitutional provisions. Implicitly, the Court was also asked to consider whether prior decisions of the High Court, particularly *Davies and Jones v Western Australia* and *Henry v Boehm*, should be revisited or reaffirmed.

The Court's reasoning, as indicated by the submissions of counsel and the interventions, focused on the constitutional validity of the Queensland Bar admission rules. Counsel for the respondents argued against granting leave to reargue established principles, particularly concerning the interpretation of section 92 and the precedent set in *Henry v Boehm*. The interveners presented varied positions, with some supporting the applicants on section 92 grounds while opposing them on section 117, and others aligning with the respondents in opposing any reopening of prior decisions. The Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth indicated support for the plaintiffs' result on section 92 but reserved a position on other aspects. The Solicitor-General for South Australia indicated support for the applicant on section 92 but opposition on section 117.