Misplaced Pages

#664335

66-746: The Southern Reporter contains published appellate court case decisions for: When cited , the Southern Reporter , the Southern Reporter Second , and the Southern Reporter Third are abbreviated "So.", "So. 2d", and "So. 3d", respectively. This article relating to law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . Appellate court An appellate court , commonly called

132-779: A court of errors (or court of errors and appeals ), on the premise that it was intended to correct errors made by lower courts. Examples of such courts include the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals (which existed from 1844 to 1947), the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors (which has been renamed the Connecticut Supreme Court ), the Kentucky Court of Errors (renamed the Kentucky Supreme Court ), and

198-400: A court of appeal(s) , appeal court , court of second instance or second instance court , is any court of law that is empowered to hear a case upon appeal from a trial court or other lower tribunal . In much of the world, court systems are divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and considers factual evidence and testimony relevant to

264-536: A separation of powers . The original formulation of Griffith, Barton and Kingston provided only that the parliament could establish a court. The draft was later amended at various conventions. In Adelaide the court's proposed name was changed to be the "High Court of Australia". Many people opposed the idea of the new court completely replacing the Privy Council. Commercial interests, particularly subsidiaries of British companies preferred to operate under

330-657: A certificate of appeal would be granted by the High Court. In 1986, with the passing of the Australia Act by both the UK Parliament and the Commonwealth Parliament (with the request and consent of the states), appeals to the Privy Council from state supreme courts were closed off, leaving the High Court as the only avenue of appeal. In 2002, Chief Justice Murray Gleeson said that

396-615: A dedicated courtroom was built in Little Bourke Street , next to the Supreme Court of Victoria . That space provided the court's Melbourne sitting place and housed the court's principal registry until 1980. The court also sat regularly in Sydney, sharing space in the criminal courts of Darlinghurst Courthouse , before a dedicated courtroom was constructed next door in 1923. The court travelled to other cities across

462-549: A notable controversy when the Constitution was drafted. Section 74 of the Constitution as it was put to voters, stated that there would be no appeals to the privy council in any matter involving the interpretation of the Constitution or state constitutions. The section as enacted by the Imperial Parliament was different. It only prohibited appeals on constitutional disputes regarding the respective powers of

528-579: A pact Japan had entered with the Axis powers prior to his arrival in Tokyo . Owen Dixon was also absent for several years of his appointment, while serving as Australia's minister to the United States in Washington . Sir George Rich acted as chief justice during Latham's absence. From 1952, with the appointment of Sir Owen Dixon as chief justice, the court entered a period of stability. After World War II,

594-487: A question of law is raised which is of public importance, involves a conflict between courts or "is in the interests of the administration of justice". Special leave hearings are typically presided over by a panel of two or three justices of the High Court. Parties are typically limited to an oral submission of 20 minutes, in addition to any written submissions. Appeals to the United Kingdom's Privy Council were

660-553: A reaction in London which prevented any serious attempt to implement the bill through the British Imperial Parliament . Another draft bill was proposed in 1880 for the establishment of an Australasian court of appeal. The proposed court would consist of one judge from each of the colonial supreme courts, who would serve one-year terms. However, the proposed court allowed for appeals to the Privy Council, which

726-407: A small proportion of trial court decisions result in appeals. Some courts, particularly supreme courts, have the power of discretionary review , meaning that they can decide whether they will hear an appeal brought in a particular case. Many U.S. jurisdictions title their appellate court a court of appeal or court of appeals . Both terms are used in the United States, but the plural form

SECTION 10

#1732801527665

792-604: A sticking point however; with objections made by Secretary of State for the Colonies , Joseph Chamberlain , the Chief Justice of South Australia, Sir Samuel Way , and Samuel Griffith , among others. In October 1899, Griffith made representations to Chamberlain soliciting suggestions from British ministers for alterations to the draft, and offered alterations of his own. Indeed, such was the effect of these and other representations that Chamberlain called for delegates from

858-652: A unanimous judgment rejecting the authority of the House of Lords decision in DPP v Smith , writing, "I shall not depart from the law on this matter as we have long since laid it down in this Court and I think that Smith's case should not be used in Australia as authority at all." The Privy Council overturned this by enforcing the UK precedent upon the High Court the following year. Thirteen High Court judges have heard cases as part of

924-591: Is New Zealand's principal intermediate appellate court. In practice, most appeals are resolved at this intermediate appellate level, rather than in the Supreme Court . The Court of Appeals of the Philippines is the principal intermediate appellate court of that country. The Court of Appeals is primarily found in Manila , with three divisions each in Cebu City and Cagayan de Oro . Other appellate courts include

990-501: Is determined by sections 75 and 76 of Australia's Constitution. Section 75 confers original jurisdiction in all matters: Section 76 provides that Parliament may confer original jurisdiction in relation to matters: Constitutional matters, referred to in section 76(i), were conferred on the High Court by section 30 of the Judiciary Act 1903 . Whilst it may seem that the inclusion of constitutional matters in section 76 means that

1056-428: Is divided in its exercise between constitutional and federal cases which loom so largely in the public eye, and the great body of litigation between man and man, or even man and government, which has nothing to do with the Constitution, and which is the principal preoccupation of the court The broad jurisdiction of the High Court means that it has an important role in Australia's legal system. Its original jurisdiction

1122-462: Is empowered by section 73 of the Constitution to hear appeals from the supreme courts of the states and territories; as well as any court exercising federal jurisdiction. It may also hear appeals of decisions made in an exercise of its own original jurisdiction. The High Court's appellate jurisdiction is limited by the Judiciary Act , which requires special leave to be granted before the hearing of an appeal. Special leave may only be granted where

1188-766: Is generally only granted in cases of public importance, matters involving the interpretation of the Commonwealth Constitution, or where the law has been inconsistently applied across the States and Territories.[19] Therefore, in the vast majority of cases, the appellate divisions of the Supreme Courts of each State and Territory and the Federal Court are the final courts of appeal. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand, located in Wellington ,

1254-521: Is more common in American English , while in contrast, British English uses only the singular form. The correct form is whichever is the statutorily prescribed or customary form for a particular court and particular jurisdiction; in other words, one should never write "court of appeal" when the court at issue clearly prefers to be called a "court of appeals", and vice versa. Historically, certain jurisdictions have titled their appellate court

1320-675: Is the apex court of the Australian legal system . It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified in the Constitution of Australia and supplementary legislation. The High Court was established following the passage of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) . Its authority derives from chapter III of the Australian Constitution, which vests it (and other courts the Parliament creates) with

1386-616: The Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court have been set up to reduce the court's workload in specific areas. In 1968, appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation were barred. In 1986, with the passage of the Australia Acts direct appeals to the Privy Council from state Supreme Courts were also closed off. The life tenure of High Court justices ended in 1977. A national referendum in May 1977 approved

SECTION 20

#1732801527665

1452-639: The Sandiganbayan for cases involving graft and corruption, and the Court of Tax Appeals for cases involving tax. Appeals from all three appellate courts are to the Supreme Court . The Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka, located in Colombo , is the second senior court in the Sri Lankan legal system . In the United States, both state and federal appellate courts are usually restricted to examining whether

1518-484: The Supreme Court of Nauru in both criminal and civil cases, but not constitutional matters. There were a total of five appeals to the High Court under this agreement in the first 40 years of its operation. In 2017, however, this jumped to 13 appeals, most relating to asylum seekers. At the time some legal commentators argued that this appellate jurisdiction sat awkwardly with the High Court's other responsibilities, and ought be renegotiated or repealed. Anomalies included

1584-640: The judicial power of the Commonwealth. Its internal processes are governed by the High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth). The court consists of seven justices, including a chief justice , currently Stephen Gageler . Justices of the High Court are appointed by the governor-general on the formal advice of the attorney-general following the approval of the prime minister and Cabinet . They are appointed permanently until their mandatory retirement at age 70, unless they retire earlier. Typically,

1650-399: The "clear error" standard. Before hearing any case, the court must have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The authority of appellate courts to review the decisions of lower courts varies widely from one jurisdiction to another. In some areas, the appellate court has limited powers of review. Generally, an appellate court's judgment provides the final directive of the appeals courts as to

1716-454: The "combined effect" of the legislation and the announcement in Kirmani "has been that s 74 has become a dead letter, and what remains of s 74 after the legislation limiting appeals to the Privy Council will have no further effect". Following an agreement between Nauru and Australia signed on 6 September 1976, the High Court became Nauru's apex court. It was empowered to hear appeals from

1782-572: The Federal Circuit , which has general jurisdiction but derives most of its caseload from patent cases, on one hand, and appeals from the Court of Federal Claims on the other. In the United States, Alabama, Tennessee, and Oklahoma also have separate courts of criminal appeals. Texas and Oklahoma have the final determination of criminal cases vested in their respective courts of criminal appeals, while Alabama and Tennessee allow decisions of its court of criminal appeals to be finally appealed to

1848-563: The High Court's original jurisdiction regarding constitutional matters could be removed, in practice section 75(iii) (suing the Commonwealth) and section 75(iv) (conflicts between states) are broad enough that many constitutional matters would still be within its jurisdiction. The original constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is now well established; the Australian Law Reform Commission has described

1914-611: The High Court. Following a court-packing attempt by the Labor Prime Minister Andrew Fisher In February 1913, the bench was increased again to a total to seven. Charles Powers and Albert Bathurst Piddington were appointed. These appointments generated an outcry, however, and Piddington resigned on 5 April 1913 after serving only one month as High Court justice. The High Court continued its Banco location in Melbourne until 1928, until

1980-655: The Mississippi High Court of Errors and Appeals (since renamed the Supreme Court of Mississippi ). In some jurisdictions, a court able to hear appeals is known as an appellate division . The phrase "court of appeals" most often refers to intermediate appellate courts. However, the New York Court of Appeals is the highest appellate court in New York. The New York Supreme Court is a trial court of general jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Maryland

2046-574: The Privy Council regularly heard appeals against High Court decisions. In some cases the Council acknowledged that the Australian common law had developed differently from English law and thus did not apply its own principles. Other times it followed English authority, and overruled decisions of the High Court. This arrangement led to tensions between the High Court and the Privy Council. In Parker v The Queen (1964), Chief Justice Owen Dixon led

Southern Reporter - Misplaced Pages Continue

2112-418: The Privy Council. Sir Isaac Isaacs is the only judge to have sat on an appeal from the High Court, in 1936 after his retirement as governor-general. Sir Garfield Barwick insisted on an amendment to Privy Council procedure to allow dissent; however, he exercised that capacity only once. The appeals mostly related to decisions from other Commonwealth countries, although they occasionally included appeals from

2178-545: The case to the Supreme Court "differently constituted, for hearing according to law". On Nauru's 50th anniversary of independence, Baron Waqa declared to parliament that "[s]everance of ties to Australia's highest court is a logical step towards full nationhood and an expression of confidence in Nauru's ability to determine its own destiny". Justice Minister David Adeang said that an additional reason for cutting ties

2244-412: The case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort) which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts, often on a discretionary basis . A particular court system's supreme court is its highest appellate court. Appellate courts nationwide can operate under varying rules. Under its standard of review , an appellate court decides the extent of

2310-480: The colonies to come to London to assist with the approval process, with a view to their approving any alterations that the British government might see fit to make; delegates were sent, including Deakin, Barton and Charles Kingston , although they were under instructions that they would never agree to changes. After intense lobbying both in Australia and in the United Kingdom, the Imperial Parliament finally approved

2376-598: The colonies, an 1849 report from the Privy Council suggested a national court be created. In 1856, the Governor of South Australia , Richard MacDonnell , suggested to the Government of South Australia that they consider establishing a court to hear appeals from the Supreme Courts in each colony. In 1860 the South Australian Parliament passed legislation encouraging MacDonnell to put the idea to

2442-684: The country, where it would use facilities of the respective supreme courts. Deakin had envisaged that the court would sit in many different locations, so as to truly be a federal court. Shortly after the court's creation, Chief Justice Griffith established a schedule for sittings in state capitals: Hobart in February, Brisbane in June, Perth in September, and Adelaide in October. It has been said that Griffith established this schedule because those were

2508-441: The court operates by receiving applications for appeal from parties in a process called special leave . If a party's application is accepted, the court will proceed to a full hearing, usually with oral and written submissions from both parties. After conclusion of the hearing, the result is decided by the court. The special leave process does not apply in situations where the court elects to exercise its original jurisdiction; however,

2574-766: The court typically delegates its original jurisdiction to Australia's inferior courts. The court has resided in Canberra since 1980, following the construction of a purpose-built High Court building , located in the Parliamentary Triangle and overlooking Lake Burley Griffin . Sittings of the court previously rotated between state capitals, particularly Melbourne and Sydney , and the court continues to regularly sit outside Canberra. The High Court exercises both original and appellate jurisdiction . Sir Owen Dixon said on his swearing in as Chief Justice of Australia in 1952: The High Court's jurisdiction

2640-488: The court's workload continued to grow, particularly from the 1960s onwards, putting pressures on the court. Sir Garfield Barwick , who was attorney-general from 1958 to 1964, and from then until 1981 chief justice, proposed that more federal courts be established, as permitted under the Constitution. In 1976 the Federal Court of Australia was established, with a general federal jurisdiction, and in more recent years

2706-551: The court. Opponents instead proposed that the court should be made up of state supreme court justices, taking turns to sit on the High Court on a rotation basis, as had been mooted at the Constitutional Conventions a decade before. Deakin eventually negotiated amendments with the opposition , reducing the number of judges from five to three, and eliminating financial benefits such as pensions. At one point, Deakin threatened to resign as Attorney-General due to

Southern Reporter - Misplaced Pages Continue

2772-545: The deference it would give to the lower court's decision, based on whether the appeal were one of fact or of law. In reviewing an issue of fact, an appellate court ordinarily gives deference to the trial court's findings. It is the duty of trial judges or juries to find facts, view the evidence firsthand, and observe witness testimony . When reviewing lower decisions on an issue of fact, courts of appeal generally look for clear error. The appellate court reviews issues of law de novo (anew, no deference) and may reverse or modify

2838-538: The design of the court as it was. Inglis Clark took the view that the possibility of divergence was a good thing, for the law could adapt appropriately to Australian circumstances. Despite this debate, the draft's judicial sections remained largely unchanged. After the draft had been approved by the electors of the colonies, it was taken to London in 1899 for the assent of the British Imperial Parliament. The issue of Privy Council appeals remained

2904-458: The difficulties he faced. In his three and a half hour second reading speech to the House of Representatives , Deakin said, The federation is constituted by distribution of powers, and it is this court which decides the orbit and boundary of every power... It is properly termed the keystone of the federal arch... The statute stands and will stand on the statute-book just as in the hour in which it

2970-403: The draft constitution. The draft as passed included an alteration to section 74, in a compromise between the two sides. It allowed for a general right of appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council, but the Parliament of Australia could make laws restricting this avenue. In addition, appeals in inter se matters were not as of right, but had to be certified by the High Court. The High Court

3036-422: The first time in the appeal. In most U.S. states, and in U.S. federal courts, parties before the court are allowed one appeal as of right. This means that a party who is unsatisfied with the outcome of a trial may bring an appeal to contest that outcome. However, appeals may be costly, and the appellate court must find an error on the part of the court below that justifies upsetting the verdict. Therefore, only

3102-405: The inclusion of constitutional matters in section 76 rather than section 75 as "an odd fact of history". The 1998 Constitutional Convention recommended an amendment to the constitution to prevent the possibility of the jurisdiction being removed by Parliament. The word "matter" in sections 75 and 76 has been understood to mean that the High Court is unable to give advisory opinions. The court

3168-462: The lower court (an appeal on the record). While many appellate courts have jurisdiction over all cases decided by lower courts, some systems have appellate courts divided by the type of jurisdiction they exercise. Some jurisdictions have specialized appellate courts, such as the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals , which only hears appeals raised in criminal cases, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for

3234-409: The lower court made the correct legal determinations, rather than hearing direct evidence and determining what the facts of the case were. Furthermore, U.S. appellate courts are usually restricted to hearing appeals based on matters that were originally brought up before the trial court. Hence, such an appellate court will not consider an appellant's argument if it is based on a theory that is raised for

3300-400: The lower court's decision if the appellate court believes the lower court misapplied the facts or the law. An appellate court may also review the lower judge's discretionary decisions, such as whether the judge properly granted a new trial or disallowed evidence. The lower court's decision is only changed in cases of an " abuse of discretion ". This standard tends to be even more deferential than

3366-439: The matter appealed, setting out with specificity the court's determination that the action appealed from should be affirmed, reversed, remanded or modified. Depending on the type of case and the decision below, appellate review primarily consists of: an entirely new hearing (a non trial de novo ); a hearing where the appellate court gives deference to factual findings of the lower court; or review of particular legal rulings made by

SECTION 50

#1732801527665

3432-416: The need to apply Nauruan law and customary practice, and that special leave hearings were not required. Nauruan politicians had said publicly that the Nauru government was unhappy about these arrangements. Of particular concern was a decision of the High Court in October 2017, which quashed an increase in sentence imposed upon political protestors by the Supreme Court of Nauru. The High Court had remitted

3498-460: The other colonies. However, only Victoria considered the proposal. At a Melbourne inter-colonial conference held in 1870, the idea of an inter-colonial court was again raised. A royal commission was established in Victoria to investigate options for establishing such a court, and a draft bill was put forward. This draft bill, however, completely excluded appeals to the Privy Council, causing

3564-458: The state supreme court. The High Court has appellate jurisdiction over all other courts. Leave must be granted by the court, before the appeal matter is heard. The High Court is paramount to all federal courts. Further, it has an constitutionally entrenched general power of appeal from the Supreme Courts of the States and Territories . Appeals to the High Court are by special leave only, which

3630-479: The states and the Commonwealth (" inter se " matters), except where the High Court certified it appropriate for the appeal to be determined by Privy Council. This occurred only once, and the High Court has said it would never again grant a certificate of appeal. No certificate was required to appeal constitutional cases not involving inter se matters, such as in the interpretation of section 92 (the freedom of inter-state commerce section). On non- inter se matters,

3696-561: The supreme court of an Australian state. Section 74 allowed parliament to prevent appeals to the Privy Council. It did so in 1968 with the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 , which closed off all appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation. In 1975, the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 closed all routes of appeal from the High Court; excepting for those in which

3762-786: The times of year he found the weather most pleasant in each city. The tradition of special sittings remains to this day, although they are dependent on the court's caseload. There are annual sittings in Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane for up to a week each year, and sittings in Hobart occur once every few years. Sittings outside of these special occurrences are conducted in Canberra. The court's operations were marked by various anomalies during World War II . The Chief Justice, Sir John Latham , served from 1940 to 1941 as Australia's first ambassador to Japan; however, his activities in that role were limited by

3828-525: The unified jurisdiction of the British courts, and petitioned the conventions to that effect. Others argued that Australian judges were of a poorer quality than those of the English, and than the inevitable divergence in law that would occur without the oversight of the Privy Council; would put the legal system at risk. Some politicians (e.g. George Dibbs ) supported a retention of Privy Council supervision; whereas others, including Alfred Deakin , supported

3894-475: Was assented to. But the nation lives, grows and expands. Its circumstances change, its needs alter, and its problems present themselves with new faces. [The High Court] enables the Constitution to grow and be adapted to the changeful necessities and circumstances of generation after generation that the High Court operates. Deakin's friend, painter Tom Roberts , who viewed the speech from the public gallery, declared it Deakin's " magnum opus ". The Judiciary Act 1903

3960-549: Was disliked by some of the colonies, and the bill was abandoned. The idea of a federal supreme court was raised during the Constitutional Conventions of the 1890s. A proposal for a supreme court of Australia was included in an 1891 draft. It was proposed to enable the court to hear appeals from the state supreme courts, with appeals to the Privy Council only occurring on assent from the British monarch . It

4026-504: Was finally passed on 25 August 1903, and the first three justices, Chief Justice Sir Samuel Griffith and justices Sir Edmund Barton and Richard O'Connor , were appointed on 5 October of that year. On 6 October, the court held its first sitting in the Banco Court in the Supreme Court of Victoria . On 12 October 1906, the size of the High Court was increased to five justices, and Deakin appointed H. B. Higgins and Isaac Isaacs to

SECTION 60

#1732801527665

4092-526: Was known as the Court of Appeals, and the Appellate Court of Maryland was known as the Court of Special Appeals, until a 2022 constitutional amendment changed their names. Depending on the system, certain courts may serve as both trial courts and appellate courts, hearing appeals of decisions made by courts with more limited jurisdiction. High Court of Australia The High Court of Australia

4158-487: Was not enough work for a federal court to make it viable. The then Attorney-General Alfred Deakin introduced the Judiciary Bill to the House of Representatives in 1902. Prior efforts had been continually delayed by opponents in the parliament, and the success of the bill is generally attributed to Deakin's passion and persistence. Deakin proposed that the court be composed of five judges, specially selected to

4224-427: Was not immediately established after Australia came into being. Some members of the first Parliament , including Sir John Quick , then one of the leading legal experts in Australia, opposed legislation to set up the court. Even H. B. Higgins , who was himself later appointed to the court, objected to setting it up, on the grounds that it would be impotent while Privy Council appeals remained, and that in any event there

4290-460: Was proposed that the Privy Council be prevented from hearing appeals on constitutional matters. This draft was largely the work of Sir Samuel Griffith , then the Premier of Queensland . The attorney-general of Tasmania Andrew Inglis Clark also contributed to the constitution's judicial clauses. Clark's most significant contribution was to give the court its own constitutional authority, ensuring

4356-478: Was the cost of appeals to the High Court. Nauru then exercised an option under its agreement with Australia to end its appellate arrangement with 90 days notice. The option was exercised on 12 December 2017 and the High Court's jurisdiction ended on 12 March 2018. The termination did not become publicly known until after the Supreme Court had reheard the case of the protesters and had again imposed increased sentences. Following Earl Grey 's 1846 proposal to federate

#664335