Constitutional Law AustraliaYou are required to write a case study of the case Love v Commonwealth XXXXXXXXXXALJR 198.The case study should be written in essay format. For the purposes of the case...

1 answer below »
Constitutional Law AustraliaYou are required to write a case study of the case
Love v Commonwealth
(2020) 94 ALJR 198.The case study should be written in essay format. For the purposes of the case study, you need to:

1) Set out succinctly and clearly the facts and legal issues of the case.


2) Explain the High Court reasoning in the case. You should cover the reasoning of both the majority and minority judges. Please provide an opinion on whether the reasoning in the judgments was appropriate or persuasive and why.


3) Explain the significance of the case for the development of constitutional law.


4) Explain the political and/or social significance of the case. Here you could also consider whether the High Court judges took the political and/or social significance of their decision into consideration in their judgment/s.


Constitutional law cases are complex and long and you may find it difficult to work out what the judges are saying. Over the years the High Court judges have developed more accessible and structured judgment writing styles but the reasoning in these cases can still be very difficult to understand, particularly when you are encountering it for the first time. Keep in mind that you are writing a 2000 word essay and that explaining the reasoning is only one part of what you have to do. You need to be able to work out what is important and significant about the case and look for the paragraphs in each judgment in which this is covered. Then you should summarise this reasoning and think about whether the reasoning is appropriate. Do you agree with the decision? Why or why not? Do you think that the judges should have taken other factors into account? You may conclude that the reasoning of the minority judges is more persuasive or appropriate and if so you should explain this.





In addressing the political and social significance of the case, you might want to reflect upon broader issues of the dispossession of indigenous people from their land through the colonisation process, and the fact that there is no acknowledgement of this or of indigenous sovereignty in the Constitution as it currently stands.


Answered Same DayAug 11, 2021LAW403University of the Sunshine Coast

Answer To: Constitutional Law AustraliaYou are required to write a case study of the case Love v Commonwealth...

Tanmoy answered on Aug 15 2021
161 Votes
Constitutional Law Australia – Love Vs Commonwealth case
Legal Issues and Facts of the case
Two men Daniel Love and Brendon Thoms were jailed in Australia due to being guilty of criminal offences. Mr. Love faced an imprisonment of more than a year due to charges of assault while Mr. Thoms was jailed for a period of 18 months for domestic violence issues. Post their release from jail th
ey faced another issue which was related to their migration character testing. Both of these men failed the test due be being in the prison for more than a year. At this juncture, both Mr. Daniel Love and Brendon Thoms failed to be recognised by the Australian federal government to be the residents of Australia. Both of the men stated that they were from Aboriginal communities of Australia. Mr. Love was born in Papua New Guinea and was from Kamilaroi people’s community of Australian aborigines while Mr. Thoms was born in New Zealand and represented the Gunggari people’s community of Australian aborigines. As per the aborigines, their law is different from the laws of Commonwealth. Also, the aboriginal laws are never recognised by the federal government of Australia as a mark of respect towards the aboriginal’s law of the land. Hence, it resulted in extreme confusion to decide for the plaintiffs as well as the high court of Australia. Two men were described as “aliens” as there were no laws related to the aboriginals in the Commonwealth laws. Hence, under the Migration Act of 1958 and also based on the latest modifications and amendment of the law in 2004, the federal government of Australia wanted to extradite both Mr. Love and Thoms. Soon, Mr. Daniel Love and Brendon Thoms raised their voice against this issue and filed suit against the Australian Commonwealth that they should be deported under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act of 1958 as they belong to the aboriginal community of Australia. Both Mr. Love and Thoms were born overseas with one of their parents being from the Australian aboriginal community. Thus since, both men were imprisonment, the Commonwealth disagreed that Mr. Love and Mr. Thoms were from foreign origin and any foreigner as per the Australian laws is treated as an ‘alien’. Thus both of them need to be deported under s 51(xix) of the Australian constitution. None of the two men wanted to be a citizen of Australia also. Mr. Thoms was accepted by the Australian High Court that he was from a recognised aboriginal Australian community and stated that he cannot be declared as an alien and rejected the Commonwealth’s plea for holding him as alien. But, Mr. Love the case went to the High Court of Australia and there was a close decision of 4-3 which led Mr. Love win the case by a close margin.
Decision
The decision made on this case was very close. Each of the seven judges gave seven different opinions. But four of the judges’ were favour of Mr. Love and their direction or trend of decision concluded that Mr. Love cannot be deported as he is does not falls within the reach and provision of s 51(xix). The judges who were in favour of the decision were Justice Bell, Justice Gordon; Justice Nettle and Justice Edelman JJ. They gave their opinions which were as follows:
1. Majority of the judges found and stated that there was an extraordinary and distinctive association between Torres Strait Island and the aboriginal people of Australia and their land and island are already recognized by the famous case decision of Mabo V Queensland where it was stated that the aboriginal Australians holds a unique and special position in the land of Australia.
2. It was also held by Justice Edelman that the antonym of the word ‘alien’ as per the dictionary meaning is not the word ‘citizen’ but a ‘non-alien’ or a person belonging to the political community or background. Hence, it can be stated that the term alien is a foreigner to the Australian...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here