December 19, 2019

A Stream Cannot Rise Higher than its Source: Australia’s landmark Communist Party Case

December 19, 2019/ Tom Daly

Peta STEPHENSON

In 1951, during the height of Cold War hysteria in Australia, the High Court thwarted the government’s plan to ban the Australian Communist Party in the decision of Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1 (“the Communist Party Case”). The case has been heralded as a triumph for Australian constitutionalism and continues to stand out as one of the most significant – even iconic – decisions ever handed down by the High Court.

December 17, 2019

A New Role for a New Court: S v Makwanyane

December 17, 2019/ Tom Daly

Toerien VAN WYK

If one has to pick a single case that would give a glimpse into South African constitutional law, S v Makwanyane and Another (Makwanyane) would be a likely contender. The case, dealing with the constitutionality of the death penalty, was the first heard by the South African Constitutional Court. The decision has had a significant impact on South African law and even beyond …

December 12, 2019

Indira Gandhi v Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak (2018): Landmark Case in Malaysia

December 12, 2019/ Tom Daly

Yvonne TEW

In 2009, Indira Gandhi, a Hindu mother of three children, turned to the courts when her husband left after an argument, forcibly taking their youngest child, an eleven-month old daughter, with him. She had learnt that he had converted to Islam and then converted all three of their children without her knowledge … Indira Gandhi petitioned the civil courts to quash the unilateral conversions of her children and obtain custody of them.

December 10, 2019

Landmark and Limitations: Republic of Fiji v Prasad

December 10, 2019/ Tom Daly

Anna DZIEDZIC

In 2000, Chandrika Prasad, a farmer who had been forced from his home in the aftermath of a coup, took the Republic of Fiji to court. He obtained a declaration that the Constitution of Fiji had not been displaced by the coup and was still in force. Remarkably, the interim government appealed this decision, submitting the question of its own legality to the Court.

December 05, 2019

Attorney-General v Taylor: An Example of the Cautious, Incremental and ‘Common Law’ Approach to Constitutional Change in New Zealand

December 05, 2019/ Tom Daly

Janet McLEAN

In the case of Attorney-General v Taylor [2018] NZSC 104 the New Zealand Supreme Court confirmed by a 3:2 majority that it has the power to issue a declaration that legislation is inconsistent with provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and proceeded to grant such a declaration in respect of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 which disqualified all serving convicted prisoners from voting.

December 03, 2019

Guest Editor’s Introduction: Constitutional Landmark Judgments in the Commonwealth

December 03, 2019/ Tom Daly

Eleonora BOTTINI

If asked, any constitutional lawyer from a legal order where a form of judicial review exists would be able to identify at least one case that is indispensable for understanding its constitutional framework. To speak metaphorically, one could say that every jurisdiction has its own Marbury v Madison.