Church of Scientology Inc. V. Mr Justice Woodward1
| Date | 01 March 1980 |
| Author | Leslie Glick |
| Published date | 01 March 1980 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0067205X8001100106 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Federal
Law
Review
102
[VOLUME
11
CHURCH
OF
SCIENTOLOGY INC. v.
MR
JUSTICE WOODWARD1
Constitutional law -Australian Security Intelligence Organization -
Executive power in relation to collection
of
information in the interests
of
security -Constitutional law -Constitution
s.
116 -
No
religious
test shall be required
as
aqualification for any office or public trust under
the Commonwealth
Anyone attending the Melbourne sitting of the High Court of Australia
on
1November 1979 would have been witness to an interesting event.
For
present before Aickin J. was the Solicitor-General for the Common-
wealth
to
argue in defence of the Director-General of the Australian
Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) against an attack
(or
rather
counter-attack if the plaintiff was to be believed) brought by the Church
of Scientology Inc.2
The plaintiff Church of Scientology was an organization incorporated
under the laws of South Australia in 1969. The defendant was the
Director-General of Security holding office under the Australian Security
Intelligence Organization Act 1956 (Cth)
("the
Act").
The
background
to
the litigation makes for fascinating reading.
The plaintiff alleged (having gained this information it said through
a"leak" in ASIO itself) that ASIO was divided into divisions; that one
such division
had
"target organizations"3 for which it was responsible;
that religious organizations such as Ananda Marga and Scientology were
included among the "target organizations"; that members of Ananda
Marga had been harassed and that Scientology was the next
"to
be
hit".
The
plaintiff further alleged that
it
had already suffered various types of
tortious and criminal interference by officers of ASIO including inter-
ference with cars and telephones, and the restriction of free movement.
In
these circumstances the plaintiff sought various forms of relief against
the defendant including an injunction restraining the defendant from
causing
or
permitting ASIO to continue to obtain, correlate
or
evaluate
information concerning the plaintiff, and damages. As the action was
brought against the defendant in his capacity as Director-General of
Security under the
Act
and as it was amatter in which the Common-
wealth~
or
aperson being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth was a
party,
or
was amatter
in
which an injunction was sought against
an
officer of the Commonwealth, the High Court had original jurisdiction.4
1Unreported decision 1November 1979. High Court of Australia; Aickin J.
2
In
form, the proceedings before Aickin J. arose from asummons taken out
on
behalf of the defendant asking that the plaintiff's statement
of
claim be struck out
pursuant to 0.26 r.
18
(High
Court
Rules) on the ground that it did not disclose a
reasonable cause
of
action
or
alternatively that the proceedings should be stayed
under 0.63 r.2 on the ground that there was not areasonable
or
probable cause
of
action disclosed
or
that the proceedings were vexatious and oppressive.
3When pressed
to
define the expression, counsel for the plaintiff offered the
following: an organization that is the subject of continued surveillance in respect
of
which intelligence
is
to be indefinitely assembled.
4
S.
75
(iii)
and (v) Constitution.
To continue reading
Request your trial