Robinson v. The Western Australian Museum1
| DOI | 10.1177/0067205X7800900205 |
| Published date | 01 June 1978 |
| Date | 01 June 1978 |
| Author | Allan Murray-Jones |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
CASE NOTE
ROBINSON
v.
THE
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM1
Constitutional law -Legislative power
of
aState -Applicability 0/
Imperial legislation -The Seas and Submerged Lands
Act
1973 (Cth)
-Navigation
Act
1912 (Cth)
-Locus
standi.
Anumber of issues, "constitutional" and otherwise, arose in the
consideration of this case by the High Court. Perhaps the area that will
be regarded as being of most general importance will be that of locus
standi, although the discussion of the limits of the legislative power of
the State of Western Australia will also be of interest.
Robinson, acitizen of Western Australia, located the remains of the
Dutch ship the "Gilt Dragon" which sank in about 1656 on the sea-bed
north of Perth and within three miles of the Western Australian coast.
In
1957 he gave notice of his discovery to the Commonwealth Receiver
of Wrecks in Freemantle and claimed an interest
as
finder. He gave
such anotice again in 1963, having been unable to relocate the wreck
in the intervening years. These notices were given pursuant to the
Navigation Act 1912 (Cth) ("the Navigation Act"). Robinson recovered
various artefacts (including coins) from the wreck and submitted some
to the Receiver and some to the Western Australian Museum Board, a
statutory body established by the Museum Act 1959 (W.A.).
By aseries of enactments, including the Museum
Act
Amendment
Act 1964 (W.A.),2 the Museum Act 1969 (W.A.) and the Maritime
Archaeology Act 1973 (W.A.)
("the
Maritime Archaeology
Act"),
the
Western Australian legislature purported to vest property in historic
wrecks, including the "Gilt Dragon", and in relics associated with such
wrecks in the Western Australian Museum, the defendant, on behalf
of the Crown. Section 6of the last-named Act went further and vested
property in "maritime archaeology sites"3 in the Museum.
It
became
an offence to alter
or
remove aship
or
asite.4No compensation was
payable
as
aresult of this vesting.
In
pursuance of its powers the
Museum prevented the plaintiff from working on the wreck
or
taking
away
or
salvaging relics.
It
itself recovered items, which it retained,
and no compensation
or
reimbursement for his expenses was offered to
!~e
plaintiff.
In
1974 Robinson commenced proceedings for declarations that the
various State Acts were invalid on one
or
more of three grounds:
(i)
that they were beyond the legislative power of the State;
(ii)
that they were repugnant to the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act
1894; and
1(1978) 16 A.L.R. 623; (1977)
51
A.L.J.R. 806. High Court
of
Australia;
Barwick C.J., Gibbs, Stephen, Mason, Jacobs and Murphy JJ.
2The principal Act therefore became the Museum Act 1959-1964.
3Defined in
s.
4
of
that Act so as
to
include parts
of
the sea-bed.
4
S.
7
(2)
of
the Maritime Archaeology Act.
239
To continue reading
Request your trial