City Research Online

Abstract

The first part of this paper examined the background to and conduct of a case called Symons v Morgan before the Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land. Symons appears to be the first case in which a colonial court asserted jurisdiction to invalidate a colonial ‘statute’ on the basis that the legislation concerned contravened the colony’s constitution. The Court claimed the jurisdiction as a matter of inference. There was no Imperial or colonial legislation expressly granting such a power, nor any judicial authority – whether colonial or Imperial in origin – supporting the Court’s conclusion. The second part of this paper analyses the responses of the colonial government to the Symons judgment, those responses being firstly an attempt to remove the judges from office and secondly the promotion and enactment of legislation authorising the colonial legislature to pass statutes inconsistent with imperial legislation, and consequently the responses of the Imperial government and Parliament to those colonial initiatives.

Publication Type:	Article
Additional Information:	This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article that will be published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Legal History available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/FLGH
Publisher Keywords:	Van Diemen’s Land; colonial constitutional law; judicial review of legislation; independence of the judiciary; amoval
Subjects:	J Political Science > JV Colonies and colonization. Emigration and immigration. International migration K Law > K Law (General)
Departments:	The City Law School The City Law School > Academic Programmes
SWORD Depositor:	Symplectic Administrator

Export

Downloads