The three 'RS' of recent Australian judicial activism: 'Roach, Rowe' and (no)'riginalism

Allan, James (2012) The three 'RS' of recent Australian judicial activism: 'Roach, Rowe' and (no)'riginalism. Melbourne University Law Review, 36 2: 743-782.

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
UQ293472_OA.pdf Full text (open access) application/pdf 328.90KB 0
Author Allan, James
Title The three 'RS' of recent Australian judicial activism: 'Roach, Rowe' and (no)'riginalism
Formatted title
The three 'RS' of recent Australian judicial activism: 'Roach, Rowe' and (no)'riginalism
Journal name Melbourne University Law Review   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0025-8938
Publication date 2012
Year available 2012
Sub-type Article (original research)
Open Access Status File (Publisher version)
Volume 36
Issue 2
Start page 743
End page 782
Total pages 40
Place of publication Melbourne, Australia
Publisher Melbourne University Law Review Association
Collection year 2013
Language eng
Subject C1
180108 Constitutional Law
Formatted abstract
In this article the author argues that two recent High Court of Australia decisions, Roach v Electoral Commissioner and Rowe v Electoral Commissioner, are prime examples of judicial activism, of judges employing interpretive techniques that have the effect of significantly inflating their own discretionary powers at the point of application of the Constitution. Indeed, he argues that these interpretive techniques would almost certainly be rejected by voters pondering a move from parliamentary sovereignty to a written constitution were these techniques, and their effects, spelt out in advance. He considers those two decisions in detail and then concludes by noting several unpalatable implications of the thinking underlying them.
Keyword Political questions and judicial power
Sentences - criminal procedure
Election law
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ
Additional Notes Published under "Critique and Comment".

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Official 2013 Collection
TC Beirne School of Law Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 1 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 12 Mar 2013, 13:21:32 EST by Carmen Buttery on behalf of T.C. Beirne School of Law