Craig v South Australia

Facts

The District Court of South Australia made orders in criminal proceedings that the prosecution alleged were beyond the court's jurisdiction. The South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal refused to grant certiorari to quash those orders. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the High Court, contending that the District Court had committed jurisdictional error amenable to certiorari.

Issues

1. What categories of error constitute jurisdictional error in an inferior court or tribunal sufficient to attract certiorari? 2. Whether the District Court's orders were vitiated by jurisdictional error.

Holding

The High Court unanimously held that the District Court had committed jurisdictional error and that certiorari should have been granted to quash the orders. The Court of Criminal Appeal's refusal to grant relief was set aside.

Ratio decidendi

An inferior court falls into jurisdictional error — and thereby becomes amenable to certiorari — where it: (a) mistakenly asserts or denies the existence of jurisdiction; (b) misidentifies the nature of the proceedings; (c) disregards or fails to consider a matter it is required to consider; (d) takes into account a matter it is bound to ignore; or (e) otherwise misconceives the applicable law and proceeds on that misconception. A tribunal (as distinct from an inferior court) also commits jurisdictional error if it makes a finding of fact or law that is a necessary precondition to the exercise of jurisdiction and makes it erroneously, or if it does any of the foregoing acts.

Obiter dicta

The joint judgment drew a significant distinction between inferior courts and administrative tribunals in applying the categories of jurisdictional error, noting that the categories may be wider for tribunals than for courts. The Court also observed that an error of law which merely occurs in the course of exercising jurisdiction — as opposed to going to the existence of jurisdiction — does not constitute jurisdictional error in an inferior court.

Significance

Craig v South Australia is the foundational High Court authority defining the categories of jurisdictional error for both inferior courts and administrative tribunals, and it remains the essential starting point for judicial review of jurisdictional error in Australian administrative law. The distinction it drew between courts and tribunals was subsequently refined in Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531, which confirmed that State parliaments cannot wholly exclude judicial review for jurisdictional error.

Key authorities

• R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598considered
• R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Bhp R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Bhp (1909) 8 CLR 419considered
• Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte (1938) 59 CLR 369considered
• R v Gray; Ex parte Marsh R v Gray; Ex parte Marsh (1985) 157 CLR 351considered
• Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147considered
• R v Coldham; Ex parte Australian Workers' Union R v Coldham; Ex parte Australian Workers' Union (1983) 153 CLR 415considered