Commonwealth Legislative Power and 'Non Punitive' Detention: A Constitutional Roadmap

By Roos, Oscar | The High Court Quarterly Review, October 2005 | Go to article overview

Commonwealth Legislative Power and 'Non Punitive' Detention: A Constitutional Roadmap


Roos, Oscar, The High Court Quarterly Review


"Experience should teach us to be more on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachments by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding"

Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v United States (1) (US Supreme Court, 1928)

Abstract: In 2004 The High Court handed down a number of decisions concerning detention imposed for purposes allegedly unrelated to punishment. This paper outlines the way the Federal Constitution restricts (and also facilitates) the imposition of "non punitive detention" by our governments. Such laws (as passed by the Federal Legislature) are constitutionally valid provided they can be characterised as falling within a legislative head of power under section 51 of the Constitution. The power to detain for non punitive purposes can be reposed by the Legislature in the either the Executive or Judicial arms of government. Detention by the Executive is non punitive (and therefore does not offend the separation of powers) even though it involves a deprivation of liberty, provided it is imposed for "legitimate non punitive purposes". Legitimacy is in turn determined by reference to the section 51 heads of power. Detention for non punitive purposes by the judicial arm of government is constitutionally valid provided that (i) a "judicial process" is adopted and (ii) (arguably) there is some link (albeit tenuous) with a previous finding of criminal guilt. The continuing existence of the "constitutional immunity" from being detained by other than judicial order identified by the High Court in its 1992 decision in Lim v Minister for Immigration is called into question.

1 INTRODUCTION

2004 was a very good year for the multifarious proponents of detention imposed for purposes unrelated to punishment (hereafter referred to as "non punitive detention"). (2) In 2004, eight litigants who were subject to some form of non punitive detention appeared in the High Court and in every case they lost. (3) It is possible to discern from this corpus of case law an emerging High Court jurisprudence relating to non punitive detention. This jurisprudence permits both analysis of how our present Constitution facilitates this exercise of power by our governments, (4) as well as speculation as to the restrictions, if any, that the Australian Constitution places upon its exercise.

Significantly, this emerging High Court jurisprudence is largely indigenous: in Australia, governments are untrammelled by limits on their powers which might flow from a Bill of Rights or a separate Charter on political freedoms. (5) The jurisprudence of consanguineous jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America and New Zealand, (6) which have served as a traditional point of reference (or point of departure) (7) in the development of the Australian common law, is arguably therefore of limited relevance.

The focus of this article is upon non punitive detention and Commonwealth legislative power under the Constitution. This necessitates putting to one side the (not unimportant) inherent prerogative, or common law powers of the executive. (8) It can be justified however, by acknowledging that in our system of Parliamentary democracy, with its central constitutional notion of parliamentary supremacy, powers to detain for purposes other than punishment almost inevitably (and arguably must always (9)) find their origin in legislation:

"Since the common law knows neither lettre de cachet nor other executive warrant authorizing arbitrary arrest or detention, any officer of the Commonwealth executive who purports to authorise or enforce the detention in custody of such an alien without judicial mandate will be acting lawfully only to the extent that his or her conduct is justified by valid statutory provision" (10) (emphasis added)

2 HOW CAN DETENTION BE "NON PUNITIVE"?

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Commonwealth Legislative Power and 'Non Punitive' Detention: A Constitutional Roadmap
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.