Abstract
This chapter explains how the High Court under former Chief Justice Mason in the early 1990s was wrongly characterized as engaging in unprincipled judicial activism. It argues that such a conclusion fails to appreciate the dynamic nature of legal reasoning in a common law system. The chapter proceeds as follows. Part I outlines the institutional features of the High Court and its structural relationship with the other branches of government. Part II highlights certain distinctive features of the judicial activism debate in Australia. Part III evaluates the contribution of the Mason Court to the development of constitutional and non-constitutional law in Australia. The final part investigates the Gleeson Court and its reaction to the perceived radicalism of the Mason Court. The chapter concludes by offering some lessons from Antipodean activism.
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
