Abstract
The meaning, scope and interaction of the key provisions relating to the rights-compatibility of legislation under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) were analysed by the Victorian Court of Appeal (‘VCA’) in R v Momcilovic. On appeal, the High Court of Australia (‘HCA’) reviewed this analysis and considered the constitutionality of the key provisions in Momcilovic v R. Although overall the HCA upheld the provisions as constitutional, no majority opinion emerged on the scope and operation of the provisions in Victoria, with similar differences of opinion reflected in the Victorian superior courts. Opinions differed on: the role, if any, of limitations under s 7(2); whether s 32(1) is an ordinary rule of statutory construction or a “remedial” rule of interpretation; and the constitutionality and role of s 36(2) declarations of inconsistent interpretation. Even where a degree of agreement was apparent on one provision, the reasoning underlying the agreement differed, and/or there was no agreement on the inter-linking provisions. An overarching theme concerned the methodology by which to approach the key provisions, which again produced disagreement.This article will critically analyse the multiplicity of views in the HCA, both because of the importance of the decision and because its application in Victoria is unclear. Regarding the latter, the Victorian superior courts have considered VCA Momcilovic to not be overruled by HCA Momcilovic, and continue to rely on it in varying degrees, whilst also seeking to identify a ratio from the HCA. By way of background, the article will explore the choices facing the VCA and its decision. It will then analyse the five HCA judgments, focussing on the thematic issues of limitations, ordinary/remedial interpretation, declarations, and methodology. It concludes with a review of the Victorian superior courts’ reaction to HCA Momcilovic. Analysis will be limited to consideration of the Charter as it operates in Victoria. In addition to the specific disagreements on the key provisions, broader issues of parliamentary sovereignty, the proper role of the judiciary and democratic governance will be examined.
Highlights
The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (‘Charter’) has survived its first major test case
This article focuses on High Court of Australia (HCA) Momcilovic, this earlier critique remains relevant because French CJ and Crennan and Kiefel JJ sanction some or all of the Victorian Court of Appeal (VCA) decision, and because Victorian superior courts continue to rely on the ‘tentative views’[55] expressed in VCA Momcilovic.[56]
The reaction of the Victorian superior courts will be analysed, with judgments falling into three categories: first, judgments that follow VCA Momcilovic based on French CJ; secondly, a judgment that expands upon the principle of legality characterisation from VCA Momcilovic; and thirdly, judgments that suggests s 32(1) reaches beyond a codification of the principle of legality
Summary
The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (‘Charter’) has survived its first major test case. Even where there was apparent agreement on one provision, the reasoning underlying that agreement differed, and/or opinions on other interconnecting provisions differed The details of these differences, and their impact on the operation of the Charter in Victoria, have received little in-depth or critical analysis.[3] This article addresses this vacuum: first, because of the significance of the decision;[4] and secondly, because the proper and constitutional operation of the key provisions in Victoria is not settled — confronted with no clear majority in HCA Momcilovic, the Victorian superior courts consider VCA Momcilovic to not be overruled and continue to rely on it in varying ways.[5] This is so despite the ‘tentative’ nature of the views expressed in VCA Momcilovic, with the VCA cautioning that ‘[n]o. These tensions are instances of much broader tensions over the retention of parliamentary sovereignty, the limits of judicial power, and the democratic nature of our governance and legal system, where recognition of rights are concerned
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
