Maloney v The Queen [2013] HCA 28

Maloney v The Queen [2013] HCA 28

The High Court held, by majority, that although the liquor restrictions on Palm Island resulted in a practical limitation on the rights of members of the Aboriginal community compared to others, these measures were valid as 'special measures' under s 8 of the RDA. Their purpose was to address serious alcohol-related harm and violence, thereby securing the adequate advancement and protection of the community. The law was found to be appropriate, adapted, and reasonably necessary for this purpose. Section 10 did not apply to invalidate the provisions because they qualified as special measures, and accordingly there was no inconsistency under s 109 of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Joan Monica Maloney; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Appeal to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Racial Discrimination, Validity of State Laws, Special Measures Under RDA, Inconsistency (s 109 Constitution), Property Rights, Rights to Equality Before the Law
Discrimination Law Constitutional Law Racial Discrimination Validity of State Laws Special Measures Under RDA Inconsistency (s 109 Constitution) Property Rights Rights to Equality Before the Law

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joan Monica Maloney

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Appeal to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether liquor restrictions applied to Palm Island are inconsistent with s 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the restrictions are valid as a 'special measure' within the meaning of s 8 of the Racial Discrimination Act
  3. 3 Whether the restrictions affect rights protected by Art 5(a), 5(d)(v) and 5(f) of the ICERD Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held, by majority, that although the liquor restrictions on Palm Island resulted in a practical limitation on the rights of members of the Aboriginal community compared to others, these measures were valid as 'special measures' under s 8 of the RDA. Their purpose was to address serious alcohol-related harm and violence, thereby securing the adequate advancement and protection of the community. The law was found to be appropriate, adapted, and reasonably necessary for this purpose. Section 10 did not apply to invalidate the provisions because they qualified as special measures, and accordingly there was no inconsistency under s 109 of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.