Talk:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
From Academic Kids
The article said:
- Technically, a litigant may appeal to the Privy Council with the permission of the Supreme Court of Australia. However, the Australian Supreme Court does not grant permission.
To which it was added:
- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE SUPREME COURT OF AUSTRALIA - EACH STATE HAS A SUPREME COURT AND THERE IS A FEDERAL COURT - THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA IS THE HIGHEST APPELATE COURT FOR BOTH
Which is right?
- The latter. There is no "Supreme Court of Australia", rather there is a "High Court of Australia". Under Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament, the State Parliament, and the British Parliament, there is no right of appeal to the Privy Council anymore, even if the High Court decided to grant one.
The original poster was correct, even if he got the name of the court wrong. The constitution (art. 74) still says that disputes relating to federal vs state powers can only be appealed to the PC with the permission of the High Court. This was in the days when everything else could be appealed without the permission of the High Court. Not surprisingly, the High court has stated that it is highly unlikely (read - never going to) to give permission to take to London the very matters which the constitution designed to be decided in Australia. Andrew Yong
Minor changes and updates in line with Privy Council's definitions. Also changed commonwealth realms to commonwealth, because republics are included.--garryq 23:25, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
The Persons Case
I wonder why the Persons Case is given as an example of Canadian cases heard by the JCPC. There were many, many important Canadian cases which went all the way to London. Why single out this one? HistoryBA 02:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
