In a recent lecture Judicial Power: Past, Present and Future, leading legal philosopher Professor John Finnis launched a strong critique of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, especially the famous decision of its predecessor, the House of Lords, in the Belmarsh case, that a provision permitting the detention of suspected terrorists was incompatible with Europe’s human rights convention. By contrast he was strongly supportive of the High Court, writing:
Australia, which has as a federal nation done entirely without constitutionally stated rights for 115 years, made the choice not to entrust this inappropriate kind of power to judges, but to trust themselves and the legislatures they elect. (Victoria and one small federal territory are the only exceptions and very novel ones.) Australia I would say has done easily as well as countries under judicially enforceable or even judicially declarable human rights, and has kept its legislative and judicial discourse authentic, largely uncluttered with this sort of make-believe and confusion of roles, responsibilities and competences.
Professor Finnis relied upon the High Court’s decision in Al-Kateb v Godwin  HCA 37 (where Court upheld indefinite immigration detention in some circumstances) and reserved particular praise for Justice Heydon’s judgment in Momcilovic v The Queen  HCA 34 (where he would have declared Victoria’s human rights law constitutionally invalid.)
Policy Exchange, which has published the lecture as part of its judicial power project, invited three leading constitutional scholars to comment. Adrienne Stone’s commentary — questioning his reliance on Al-Kateb and Momcilovic — is here: Continue reading