Sue v Hill
| Sue v Hill | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Sue v Hill & Anor; Sharples v Hill & Anor |
| Decided | 23 June 1999 |
| Citation(s) | [1999] HCA 30, (1999) 199 CLR 462. |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | none |
| Subsequent action(s) | none |
| Case opinions | |
|
(4:3)That the High Court of Australia (sitting as the Court of Disputed Claims) had Jurisdiction over the case. |
|
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Gleeson (Chief Justice), Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne & Callinan (Justices) |
(4:3)That the High Court of Australia (sitting as the Court of Disputed Claims) had Jurisdiction over the case.
Assent: Gleeson (CJ), Gaudron, Gummow & Hayne (J)
Dissent: McHugh, Kirby & Callinan (J)
(4:0) the jurisdiction of the Court of Disputed Returns, as conferred on the High Court, involves the exercise of judicial power and is not inconsistent with the separation of powers
Assent: Gleeson (CJ), Gaudron, Gummow & Hayne (J)
Non Deciding: McHugh, Kirby & Callinan (J)
(4:0) the United Kingdom is a "foreign power", for the purposes of section 44 of the Australian Constitution
Assent: Gleeson (CJ), Gaudron, Gummow & Hayne (J)
Sue v Hill was an Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 23 June 1999. It concerned a dispute over the apparent return of a candidate, Heather Hill, to the Australian Senate in the 1998 federal election. The result was challenged on the basis that Hill was a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and Australia, and that section 44(i) of the Constitution of Australia prevents any person who is the citizen of a "foreign power" from being elected to the Parliament of Australia. The High Court found that, at least for the purposes of section 44(i), the United Kingdom is a foreign power to Australia.
The degree to which Australia is and has been independent from the United Kingdom is a topic of much debate. The common view is that there has been an evolutionary process by which Australia has gained more and more independence.
The 1926 Imperial Conference resulted in the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, and the Balfour Declaration 1926, which granted the Dominions equal status to the United Kingdom. However, laws passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom still had force in Australia, and laws passed by Australian parliaments would be invalid if they contradicted United Kingdom laws (the doctrine of repugnancy). The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 ended the doctrine of repugnancy, and provided that United Kingdom laws would only have force in Australia at Australia's request.
...
Wikipedia