Attorney General for Australia v The Queen

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
CourtPrivy Council
Judgment Date1957
Year1957
Date1957

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
6 books & journal articles
  • Constitutional Limits on Bills of Rights Introduced by a State or Territory
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 35-3, September 2007
    • 1 septembre 2007
    ...94 CLR 254, 290 (Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Fullagar, Kitto JJ); GPAO (1999) 196 CLR 553, 621–3 (McHugh and Callinan JJ); A-G (Cth) v The Queen [1957] AC 288, 320; Gould v Brown (1998) 193 CLR 346, 427 (McHugh J); cf Ruhani (2005) 219 ALR 199 [4] (Gleeson CJ). 148 See, eg, Capital Duplicators Pty......
  • The Limits and Use of Executive Power by Government
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 31-3, September 2003
    • 1 septembre 2003
    ...Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, 275 ('Boilermakers'). 109 Attorney-General (Australia) v The Queen [1957] AC 288, 315. 110 See, especially, ss 53, 57, 63 and 64. 434 Federal Law Review Volume 31 __________________________________________________________......
  • Territory Courts and Federal Jurisdiction
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 33-1, March 2005
    • 1 mars 2005
    ...125 CLR 591, 600; the expression was originally used in Attorney-General (Cth) v The Queen ('Boilermakers' Case') (1957) 95 CLR 529, 545; [1957] AC 288, 320 (Viscount Simonds, for the Judicial Committee). 2005 Territory Courts and Federal Jurisdiction 79 ____________________________________......
  • SEPARATION OF POWERS IN THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION:
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2017, December 2017
    • 1 décembre 2017
    ...section. 2R v Kirby, ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia(1956) 94 CLR 254, affirmed sub nomAttorney-General for Australia v R[1957] AC 288. 3 See ss 71 and 77(iii) of the Commonwealth Constitution. 4 George Winterton, Parliament, the Executive and the Governor-General (Melbourne Uni......
  • Get Started for Free