A Brief Introduction to Judicial Activism in the Australian Common Law

Nur Gemilang Mahardika, S.H., LL.M

Universitas Islam Indonesia

Lihat

The two grandest and most diverging legal systems in the world, civil law and common law, come up with each of their own distinct features. Civil law is equipped with its codified written legislations, hence an active legislative body spoon-feeding the judiciary with which law to be applied in its decision. While common law renders series after series of precedents, therefore in it is established a more active judiciary. This circumstance not so seldom causes a pendulum swing between the legislature and the judiciary in terms of addressing some newly emerging legal issues or other matters of delicate and sensitive nature. On one hand, the judiciary is on swayed deck in deciding these matters as the relevant piece of legislation is yet to be issued; on the other, the legislature awaits the judiciary to make the first move, hence signalling them to proceed to formulating the bill after the judiciary’s decision. In the light of that, the latter concept often prevails, which from it arises the notion of “judicial activism” in the common law system. By utilising statutory and case approaches, this writing addresses the importance of judicial activism by cherry-picking the specific study of Australian common law system as well as whether offering answer to the question of whether judicial activism should be limited. It is with high hopes that this writing would provide a brief introduction and a closer look at common law system, particularly its judicial activism element, for those who are yet to be familiar with it.

Keywords: Australia; common law system; judicial activism

Daftar Pustaka

Articles, Books & Report

Commonwealth of Australia, Review of the Law of Negligence: Final Report (2002)
French, Robert, ‘Judicial Activists – Mythical Monsters?’ (2008) 12 Southern Cross
University Law Review 59
Frickey, Phillip P, ‘Structuring Purposive Statutory Interpretation: An American
Perspective’ (2006) 80 Australian Law Journal 849
Heyd, David, “Are ‘Wrongful Life’ Claims Philosophically Valid? A Critical Analysis of
A Recent Court Decision” (1986) 21 Israel Law Review 574
Kirby, Michael, ‘Statutory Interpretation: The Meaning of Meaning’ (2011) 35 Melbourne
University Law Review 113
Kmiec, Keenan, “The Origin and Current Meaning of ‘Judicial Activism’” (2004) 92
California Law Review 1441
Luntz, Harold, Torts: Cases and Commentary (LexisNexis, 2002)
MacAdam, Alastair, John Pyke, Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in Australia
(Butterworths, 1998)
Montesquieu, Baron de, Charles Louis de Secondat, The Spirit of the Laws (Hafner
Publishing, 1949)
Pattinson, Shaun D, ‘The Human Rights Act and the Doctrine of Precedent’ (2015) 35
Legal Studies 142
Stolker, Carel, ‘Wrongful Life: The Limits of Liability and Beyond’ (1994) 43 International
and Comparative Law Quarterly 521
Stretton, Dean, ‘Harriton v Stephens; Waller v James: Wrongful Life and the Logic of Non-
Existence’ (2006) 30(3) Melbourne University Law Review 972
Svantesson, Dan Jerker B, ‘A Call for Judicial Activism – Rapid Technological
Developments and Slow Legal Response’ (2011) 36 Alternative Law Journal 33
Todd, Stephen, ‘Wrongful Conception, Wrongful Birth, Wrongful Life’ (2005) 27 Sydney
Law Review 525, 531
Williams, Glanville, ATH Smith, Learning the Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 2006)
Zimmermann, Augusto, ‘Judicial Activism and Arbitrary Control: A Critical Analysis of
Obergefell v Hodges 556 US (2015) – The US Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage
Case’ (2015) 17 The University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review 74

Cases

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199
Carr v Western Australia (2007) 232 CLR 138
Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 77 ALJR 1312
Cook v Cook (1986) 162 CLR 376
CSR Ltd v Eddy (2005) 226 CLR 1
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) 48 TLR 494
Gleitman v Cosgrove 227 A 2d 689 (NJ, 1967)
Grosse v Purvis [2003] QDC 151
Harriton v Stephens [2002] NSWSC 461
Harriton v Stephens (2004) 59 NSWLR 694
Harriton v Stephens (2006) 226 CLR 52
Imbree v McNeilly (2008) 236 CLR 510
Jane Doe v Australian Broadcasting Corporation & Others [2007] VCC 281
Lacroix v Dominique [2001] 6 CCLT (3d) 212
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520
Marburry v Madison (1803) 5 US 137
McKay v Essex Area Health Authority [1982] 2 All ER 771
Obergevell v Hodges 566 US (2015)
Paton v British Pregnancy Advisory Service Trustees [1978] 2 All ER 987
Plaintiff S 157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562
Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479
Waller v James (2006) 226 ALR 457
X v Pal (1991) 23 NSWLR 26
Zanner v Zanner (2010) 79 NSWLR 702
Zeitsov v Katz (1986) 40(2) PD 85

Legislations

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
The Australian Constitution
The Constitution of 1945 (Republic of Indonesia)
United States Constitution

Miscellaneous

Craven, Craven, ‘Reflection on Judicial Activism: More in Sorrow than in Anger’ (Paper
presented at the 9th Samuel Griffith Society Conference, Perth, 24-26 October 1997)
French, Robert, ‘Judicial Activism – and the Boundaries of Judicial Roles’ (Paper
presented at LAWASIA Conference, Ho Chi Minh City, 10 November 2009)
Garner, Brian A (ed), Black’s Law Dictionary (Thomson Reuters, 10th ed, 2014)