MABO Case Study Gauging Judicial Activism
Task: Are there important discussions on Judicial Activism identified on the MABO Case study?
Judicial activism is founded on the idea that tribunals, specifically the appeal court, have to change the old rules or laws that they consider to be flawed. It will allow liberation from the current high establishments to be granted to the jurors. The primary objective of the reform as observed on the MABO Case study is to provide priority to cultural concerns and beliefs instead of providing credence to the rules of law. However, it does carry a drawback, if an entity does not need to be held responsible on charges and accusations which have been previously dropped. In the scenario of Trigwell, it had been explained clearly that the owners were not liable for caring for anyone using roads and stopping pets from straying on the roadway. It was determined that it might not be feasible since it cannot be controlled by landlords in this era of such immense traffic and even in the event that this law is withdrawn and changed the owners will need to buy insurance against the private entity and that would be quite costly So, imposing judicial constraints and not changing the legislation was considered by a large number of judges. This is also stated that courts will create a separate policy with societal values in consideration, and that is a major debating issue. Hence, it has been said that the tribunal's actions are centred on their perceptions that the jurors actually hold, and thus many members of society may not have the same opinion. The same scenario was brought up in the case of Mabo v Queensland (Mabo v Queensland (No 2) 175 C.L.R. 1, 1992), wherein, the opinions and beliefs based on which the judge made their decision was not looked at in the same way by the members of the society. The concern was to favour the indigenous people's interests. Mabo case summary created an entirely new regulation. Following the 1996 Wik ruling on native title and plantation contracts, MABO Case study ruling was widely criticized. The explanation for these kinds of opposition was the policy that was contrary to financial, business and other peoples ' interests.
The judge ruled in the MABO Case study dispute that the awarding of some grazing contracts didn't eliminate the claimant's native title claim to a leasing property. in question. The judgment was protested by many individuals in the community and politics. The High Court was said to be active in judicial activism. In 1996, the case of Wik People, overturned legal leases against native people.
The judge found that the leaseholder was not given sole ownership privileges for the legal grazing lease. The legal concessions against the natives are to be revoked in the event of any dispute. It was widely criticized and the nature of Australia's territory was doubted. The council was blamed because of its ruling and has been said not to be socially conscious about people's needs. It was then a 10-point project was drafted by the Howard government. This policy gave clarity to Australia's property rights. It must be acknowledged because, in order to reach some agreement, it is very necessary that careful negotiations be held so as to arrive at a resolution that includes adjustments.
Any event that is deeply opposed to judicial activism is accompanied by judicial vigilance. Judicial activism is really the judge's strength, but it is also their accountability. The judiciary is scrutinized by the government and the public with all of its decisions. But this doesn't weaken the court's credibility. They must have enough capacity to make a judgment.
The ideals issued by the courts were not generally accepted in the Mabo case summary. We can thus infer that throughout the judicial proceedings, judicial activism should be granted lesser significance. It has to be understood that judicial activism must not be granted priority and retrospective implementation as the interests of the group are compromised instead of the legislation being changed and attempting to improve it. Courts should also not make significant changes in the disputes that have been resolved for a long time without being totally aware of the actual problems and their impact. It would not imply that there should be no changes by the courts relating to the MABO Case study. It should not be by judicial activism, but through the implementation of legal values. King Henry V's lines "go to the ant consider her ways, and be wise" correctly convey it.
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) 175 C.L.R. 1 (1992).
Goldsworthy, J., 2017. Tom Campbell on Judicial Activism. Austl. J. Leg. Phil., 42, p.247
Michelman, F.I., 2019. Political-Liberal Legitimacy and the Question of Judicial Restraint. Jus Cogens, pp.1-17.
French, R., 2017. Judicial review: Populism, the rule of law, natural justice and judicial independence. Brief, 44(9), p.19.
Davies, Chris. "Native title in Queensland twenty-five years post-Mabo." James Cook UL Rev. 23 (2017): 103.
Dabelstein, M., 2018. Native Title vs land rights: is change more effective when it is achieved through social and political activism or the courts?. NEW: Emerging scholars in Australian Indigenous Studies, 2(1), pp.44-49.
Charak, S.E. and Gardos, S., 2019. Indigenous criminals, settler jurisdiction and legal pluralism: a case study in anachronism and the vagaries of the legal archive.