Ackroyd v McKechnie [1986] HCA 43

Ackroyd v McKechnie [1986] HCA 43

Section 64(3) of the Fauna Conservation Act 1974 (Qld) is invalid insofar as it imposes a prohibition on bringing fauna into Queensland from another State for interstate trade and commerce, unless a permit is granted at the uncontrolled discretion of officials, because this directly contravenes s.92 of the Constitution, which guarantees absolute freedom of interstate trade, commerce and intercourse.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Stated Case / Decision on Constitutional Validity and Answers to Stated Questions
Outcome
Orders made in favour of the plaintiff; key aspects of s.64(3) declared invalid as applied to interstate trade; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['section 92 of Constitution' 'interstate Trade and Commerce' 'fauna Conservation Act 1974 (qld)' 'validity of Permit Requirements for Interstate Commerce']
['constitutional Law'] ['section 92 of Constitution' 'interstate Trade and Commerce' 'fauna Conservation Act 1974 (qld)' 'validity of Permit Requirements for Interstate Commerce']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Stated Case / Decision on Constitutional Validity and Answers to Stated Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the birds seized were the subject of interstate trade and commerce within s.92 of the Constitution' 'Whether s. 64(3) of the Fauna Conservation Act 1974 (Qld) is invalid as it applies to interstate trade in fauna' 'Whether the permit system and discretionary powers under s.64(3) and related sections infringe s.92']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 64(3) of the Fauna Conservation Act 1974 (Qld) is invalid insofar as it imposes a prohibition on bringing fauna into Queensland from another State for interstate trade and commerce, unless a permit is granted at the uncontrolled discretion of officials, because this directly contravenes s.92 of the Constitution, which guarantees absolute freedom of interstate trade, commerce and intercourse.

Court Disposition

Orders made in favour of the plaintiff; key aspects of s.64(3) declared invalid as applied to interstate trade; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['(a) The birds at the time they were seized and detained by the fauna officer were the subject of trade, commerce and intercourse between the States within the meaning of s.92 of the Constitution: Yes.' '(b) Section 64(3) of the Act is invalid in so far as it would apply to fauna the subject of trade, commerce and...