william cooper v stuart

0000000987 00000 n [51]GS Lester, Submission 468 (19 February 1985) argued that the only secure basis for asserting Aboriginal rights at common law is to accept that Australia was settled and to controvert the decision in the Nabalco case that the consequence of settlement was to vest all land (and associated rights) in the Crown. (1979) 24 ALR 118 (Full Court). 0000064207 00000 n 0000007196 00000 n dqP5)b l8"$yTbS,&s;L?NV;%gN\8E)Ee[- uwZ/ m\]c1sDoIhccP?RB[^@IBIcOlV0&`|?g7lv2CL! 35. It has maintained its pre-eminence as one of the most important journals of its kind encompassing Human Rights and European Law. The case was about the reception of English law into the new colony and only en passant does it address the issue of indigenous rights to land. Full case name. 66. See also Logan Jack (1921), and cf para 39. 0000002286 00000 n Professor Bruce Kercher, An Unruly Child, A History of Law in Australia, 1994 LAWYER MONTHLY - Lawyer Monthly is a Legal News Publication featuring the Latest Deals, Appointments and Expert Insights from Legal Professionals around the Globe. Two of the four justices in Coe v Commonwealth[30] thought the point arguable, though two did not. 10 0 obj endstream endobj 141 0 obj <> endobj 142 0 obj <> endobj 143 0 obj <> endobj 144 0 obj <>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>> endobj 145 0 obj <> endobj 146 0 obj <> endobj 147 0 obj <> endobj 148 0 obj <> endobj 149 0 obj <> endobj 150 0 obj <> endobj 151 0 obj <> endobj 152 0 obj <>stream See para 66 for statements of this view. In practice, difficulties such as those encountered in Milirrpums case would be encountered, given the enormous changes in Aboriginal societies and traditions since settlement. Australian Court Case, Barwick, Chief Justice, Cooper V Stuart, Deane, Sir William, High Court of Australia, Murphy, Justice, Murphy, Justice, native title, Papua It is necessary to distinguish three separate issue s. The first is the acquisition of sovereignty by the British Crown over Australia as a matter of international law (and the international consequences for the Aboriginal inhabitants). 140 46 >> The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws and Traditions Today, The Position of Torres Strait Islanders and South Sea Islanders, The Definition of Aboriginal Customary Laws. To similar effect S Jones, Submission 16G (7 June 1977); P Gray & R Williams, Submission 19 (15 June 1977) 1. It is hardly necessary to say that the question is not how the manner in which Australia became a British possession might appropriately be described. ;:Da>C[D{n+)ptz]fm=X#(L60 uq!AffW+2M^:.zctt'TPmm;CH*Ox@AmMu. Previously, Blackstonian notions of dominion and control had dominated legal thinking about how to make claims to property. [48] Certainly the process of conquest by attrition took much longer than the acquisition of the territory of Australia as a matter of international law.[49]. Indigenous Legal Judgments: Bringing Indigenous Voices into Judicial Decision Making, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the law, Synot, E; de Silva-Wijeyeratne, R, Commentary: Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286, Indigenous Legal Judgments: Bringing Indigenous Voices into Judicial Decision Making, 2021, 1. The Commissions Work on the Reference, Special Needs for Consultation and Discussion, 3. 876 xb```f``u2l@q ^z49nOekLP5UZl[T:>y]YNaq``r``1`Pf4(%=H@?sPD Ff}@a I9bI(xpk@y hTu,,b~g1h~y Aboriginal Customary Laws and Anglo-Australian Law After 1788, Protest and Reform in the 1920s and 1930s, 6. WebMlad Sheldon (angl. 0000061270 00000 n [26] The general principles for the introduction of English law into a settled as distinct from a conquered colony were laid down by Blackstone in 1765. <]>> 0000033715 00000 n The contrary view was expressed, for example, by Justice H Zelling, Submission 369 (26 January 1983) 1, on the grounds that the settled colony rule was established practice for other colonies with indigenous inhabitants, and that it was in any event established, for South Australia at least, by statute (4 & 5 Wm IV c95), not merely by judicial decision. Special Protection for Aboriginal Suspects? [cited 23 Jul, 3 Letters Patent for South Australia 19 February 1836. [51] And it is another question again what the consequences would be of a reassessment now of the status of the acquisition of Australia, and of its classification as uninhabited and uncultivated. Cooper v Stuart (1899) Held that the land was unoccupied upon discovery and so it was settled. cf A Frame, Colonizing Attitudes towards Maori Custom (1981) NZLJ 105; MR Litchfield, Confiscation of Maori Land (1985) 15. However it is desirable to deal with the issue at the general level at which it is raised. Online Library of Liberty What Are the Legal Difficulties in Building Envelope Consulting? The Growth of Japanese Dispute Resolution, The Threshold for Perversity When Challenging the Assignment of Claims, Crime in Art Law: Digitalisation, Trafficking and Destruction, div#side-jobs-widget br {display: none;}div#side-jobs-widget strong{display:Block;}.slj-job.slj-job-sidebar{margin:0 0 25px;}, OSCAR HEALTH 72 HOUR DEADLINE ALERT: Former Louisiana Attorney General, UPSTART HOLDINGS 96 HOUR DEADLINE ALERT: Former Louisiana Attorney, OUTSET MEDICAL ALERT: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. C. W. Beckham en 1915. 0000038209 00000 n Phone +61 7 3052 4224 To justify the acquisition of land in Australia, the British combined the common law notion of settlement (from Blackstone), an argument of indigenous rights to land where the indigenous people were in actual occupation, and a scale of civilisation framework borrowed from both the Lockean idea of property rights being generated from labour mixing with the soil and the Scottish moral philosophers four stages of civilisation arising out of political economy (Hunter- gatherers, Agriculture, Mercantilism and Industrialisation). Aboriginal Customary Laws: Recognition? F$E-:# W 3 This is a very interesting and well researched book marred by its sometimes hectoring tone and enthusiastic embracement of the revisionist side of the History Wars; Coe v Commonwealth (1979) 53 ALJR 403; (1993) 118 ALJR 110; H Reynolds The Law of the Land 2nd ed Melbourne: Penguin Books 1992. Y:GEEYEBwCC-YGYD6[EYE,A2Z- 0000005450 00000 n The statement by the Privy Council may be regarded either as having been made in ignorance or as a convenient falsehood to justify the taking of aborigines land.[33]. The case, Cooper v Stuart , had nothing to do with the rights of Aboriginal people in New South Wales. 0000001501 00000 n Aboriginal Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Rights: Current Australian Legislation, Legislation on Hunting and Gathering Rights, Access to Land for Hunting and Gathering: The Present Position, Miscellaneous Restrictions Under Australian Legislation, Australian Legislation on Hunting, Fishing and Gathering: An Overview, 36. The Commission has received several submissions arguing that the settled colony notion should be rejected in the strongest terms as an initial step in its inquiry. This commentary explains the Privy Councils opinion in Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286, a case which continues to influence Australias constitutional framework. Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286, 291. Even Blackstone himself remarked that the American plantations were obtained in the last century [that is, the 17th century] either by right of conquest and driving out the natives (with what natural justice I shall not at present inquire) or by treaties.6 Blackstone was not sure of the legality of what occurred, but with an unwarranted delicacy declined to examine the issue of indigenous rights further. 0000006318 00000 n See also footnote 2 in Fitzmaurice, The Genealogy, 10 (1889) 14 App Cas 286 at 291; (1886) NSWR 1; Evening News, Sydney, Monday 17 August 1885 at 5; Darling Downs Gazette Saturday 6 April 1889; The Daily Northern Argus Rockhampton Monday 28 January 1889, 14 Exactly what the defendants counsel in Attorney-General v Brown had argued, see footnote 9. a Q;AO.0@.t;h*() B` 2,8fd/^rq?1 H #x9230:C GDpqs7>ao"'2BSUmA7#h2KrD* The Australian High Court's Use of the Western Sahara Case in Mabo - Volume 45 Issue 4 See eg RL Sharp, People without Politics, in VF Ray (ed) Systems of Political Control and Bureaucracy in Human Societies, University Of Washington Press, Seattle, 1958; P Sutton People with Politics: Management of Land and Personnel on Australias Cape York Peninsula, in NW Williams and ES Hunn (eds) Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers, Westview Press, Colarado, 1982, 155. JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Module 4: Arrival and Reception of English Law in Colonial Australia That debate is of great importance, quite apart from any specifically legal consequences it may have. /Parent 5 0 R 0 William Watson, Baron Watson - Wikipedia Mlad Sheldon Wikipdia The land was deemed terra nullius Mabo v Queensland (No. The Select Committee of the House of Commons on Aborigines stated in 1837: The land has been taken from them without the assertion of any other title than that of superior force and by the commission under which the Australian colonies are governed, Her Majestys Sovereignty over the whole of New South Wales is asserted without reserve. Webis generally regarded as settled, a legal principle laid down in Cooper v Stuart7 in 1889 and followed by Blackburn J in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd in 1971. (M[Qm`}Jw[R$@(W\ [53]When the House of Commons Select Committee on Aborigines reported: see para 64. /F1 8 0 R 12 0 obj The words desert and uncultivated are Blackstones own; they have always been taken to include territory in which live uncivilized inhabitants in a primitive state of society. Reminds. Stay informed with all of the latest news from the ALRC. He was Lord Advocate , the most senior Law stream 0000031992 00000 n The Doctrine of Terra Nullius became a morphed and more extreme version of the Doctrine of Discovery and was not overruled until the 1992 case of Mabo v State of Queensland. The Australian Law Reform Commission acknowledges the traditional owners and custodians of country throughout Australia and acknowledges their continuing connection to land, sea and community. Along Came Jones General Issues of Evidence and Procedure, 24. 0000020370 00000 n /hWj|]e_+-7 0000003844 00000 n Despite the Treaty of Waitangi, this idea of actual occupation coupled with the labour theory of property was applied not just by British settlers but by the Crown in New Zealand as well as Australia (where no treaties were made by the Crown). /Font << %PDF-1.2 /ProcSet 2 0 R Attorney-General v Brown must, as we shall see, be viewed in light of the battle Governor Gipps ultimately lost in exercise of the Crowns prerogative to protect the lands beyond the limits of location from the unlawful encroachment by squatters. CHRISTIAN FOUNDATIONS OF AUSTRALIAS - Murdoch The Tribunal cannot conduct negotiations. Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286. Request Permissions, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. [33]id, 138. to receive all of the latest news from the world of Law. William G. Cooper, et al., Members of the 0000005359 00000 n When the House of Commons Select Committee on Aborigines reported: see para 64. The consequence of the settlement doctrine producing a justification of Crown full ownership of most of the land in Australia in this way is, as Mick Dodson has pointed out, that the sovereign pillars of the Australian state are arguably, at the very least, a little legally shaky.5 Neither conquest, cession nor settlement provides a proper legal basis for the establishment of the Crowns legal relationship to property in land. }";K{ls}EZvM<5B As Kents Commentaries pronounced, [t]he peculiar character and habits of the Indian nations, rendered them incapable of sustaining any other relation with the whites than that of dependence and pupillage. A political compact or settlement which addresses past wrongs, establishes a proper basis for the acquisition of land by the Crown, and settles the compensation which is required to seal that compact between the States, the Territories and the Commonwealth on the one hand. Queensland 4003. Young Sheldon) je americk komedilny seril stanice CBS vytvoren Chuckom Lorreom a Stevenom Molarom.Seril, odohrvajci sa koncom 80. a zaiatkom 90. rokov 20. storoia, je spin-off Prequelom sitkomu Teria vekho tresku a predstavuje postavu Sheldona Coopera v jeho deviatich rokoch, ktor ije so svojou rodinou vo >> ISSN: 1323-1391. cHzHRfj0"'sa)&pVZ+,d#1jTWRHa@E See para 37, 203. Yrz]PI\_E[jcCY& =B2Hc|07nz"g3)(gswdK\'v213 V4hj!B h%b8FoqO9s3= bHaA1'9"lJy]9X3| m!3@wR7/rWxVejodq UcS[9(Y(N*XM1T&=8$HqA[$y1]8vQ j:yS`rhD. The Privy Council, in obiter, noted New South Wales was, as a tract of territory, practically unoccupied, without settled inhabitants or settled land, at the time when it was peacefully annexed to the British dominions. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 0000005665 00000 n 0000020755 00000 n endobj Part 2 will address this question, and explain how the assertion of the law was contextualised as part of the colonial project to ignore indigenous claims to ownership as first taker. Email info@alrc.gov.au, PO Box 12953 The Privy Council said that New South Wales was a tract of territory, practically Cooper v Stuart But the Maori experience suggests that such recognition would have been grudging and temporary. If applied to territory inhabited by indigenous peoples, the original law of nations provided that goods which belong to no owner [that is, no sovereign] pass to the occupier.3 On this view, a mainly Continental European one, dispossession of first nation peoples was wrong. Foundations Of Law | Oxbridge Notes biXDN>[ 57h$%42TPd0vX:{ ~4an``)Tpv%qX;V0]`pVVP1(X"y5 X} 7b startxref What underlies those proposals, and the Commissions general approach, is an acknowledgment of the present realities, and the present needs, of the Aboriginal people of Australia. Conspiracy Theorist Eventually the scramble for Africa in the late 19th century saw the English formulation temporarily win out.5 But by 1975, in international law, the anti-dispossession view of terra nullius was re-established: Occupation being legally an original means of peaceably acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid occupation that the territory should be terra nullius a territory belonging to no-one at the time of the act alleged to constitute occupation. Those territories inhabited by tribes or peoples having a social and political organization were not regarded as terra nullius.6 Thus we can state proposition 6. It was the only journal which offered the reader coverage of comparative law as well as public and private international law. /Resources << The issue for the Commission in the present Reference is the extent to which Aboriginal customary laws and traditions should be recognised by the Australian legal system now, nearly two hundred years after permanent European entry into Australia. 9 0 obj [29] The classification of the British acquisition of Australia as acquisition by settlement might therefore seem to be established, although it is possible that the question may be reopened in the High Court. xref Whether Eastern Australia was desert and uncultivated in Blackstones sense may be another question. 0000015739 00000 n << [48]See I Hookey, Settlement and Sovereignty in P Hanks and B Keon-Cohen (eds) Aborigines and The Law, George Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1984, 16, 17. The Protection and Distribution of Property, Distribution of Property between Living Persons[2], 16. 6 Legal Tips On Protecting Yourself Against Dental Malpractice, Drugmaker Endo Signs $65 Million Opioid Settlement With Florida, Inos 17-049 GmbH Acquires Werther International, Bancomext raises $600 million to face COVID-19, 5 Great Tools for Attorneys to Improve Sales. @x @L#&JfA Director : Stuart Heisler Media Format : NTSC, Subtitled Run time : 1 hour and 30 minutes Release date : February 6, 2018 Actors : Gary Cooper, Loretta Young, William Demarest, Dan Duryea Subtitles: : English Studio : Classicflix ASIN : B076DR791M Number of discs : 1 Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws at Common Law: The Settled Colony Debate. Securing Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Rights, Aboriginal Participation in Resource Management, Administrative and Political Constraints of the Federal System, The Framework of Religious Exemptions in Anti-discrimination Legislation, Australias Corporate Criminal Responsibility Regime. >> [44]cf G Blainey, Triumph of the Nomads, rev edn, Sun Books, Melbourne, 1983, 67-83, and see further para 883-7. Aboriginal Customary laws and the Criminal Justice System, The Interaction of Aboriginal Customary Laws and the Criminal Law, Legal Pluralism in the Criminal Law: Overseas Experience, 18. Other Methods of Proof: Assessors, Court Experts, Pre-Sentence Reports, Justice Mechanisms in Aboriginal Communities: Needs, Problems and Responses, 28. Many of these journals are the leading academic publications in their fields and together they form one of the most valuable and comprehensive bodies of research available today. See para 61. The Privy Council said that New South Wales was a tract of territory, practically unoccupied, without settled inhabitants or settled land, at the time when it was peacefully annexed to the British dominions rather than a Colony acquired by conquest or cession, in which there is an established system of law. It is neither correct nor just to say that it is too late to change now. Despite being overturned by Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (Mabo [No 2]), the case remains important because of the Privy Councils justification for the application of English common law to the colony of New South Wales. 0000002631 00000 n 0000008784 00000 n Australia's Legal History and Colonial Legacy [39] In Western Australia, the State was deemed to have been established on 1 June 1829 for the purposes of determining the application of Imperial Acts. Current student It publishes over 2,500 books a year for distribution in more than 200 countries. The second part sets out the legal argument for a compact/Makkerata or recognition of prior sovereignty in Indigenous Australians, based both on part 1 and the New Zealand precedent. 0000035325 00000 n 0000036242 00000 n Canada inserted section 35 into its Constitution in the 1980s, thus embedding indigenous rights into the foundational structure of the nation. (1978) 18 ALR 592 (Mason J);. A similar distinction was made by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in its report on the feasibility of an Aboriginal treaty or Makarrata: It may be that a better and more honest appreciation of the facts relating to Aboriginal occupation at the time of settlement, and of the Eurocentric view taken by the occupying powers, could lead to the conclusion that sovereignty inhered in the Aboriginal peoples at that time. The Issue for the Commission. The Proof of Aboriginal Customary Laws, Proof of Customary Laws: The Overseas Experience, Proof of Aboriginal Customary Laws: The Australian Experience, Methods of Proving Aboriginal Customary Laws, 26. [40] Except so far as it has been altered by Australian Parliaments or courts, or by Imperial Acts applying to Australia, British law as it existed at these dates is still the law applicable to all citizens, including Aborigines. 0000002143 00000 n 0000060797 00000 n %%EOF 0000002726 00000 n startxref This paper seeks to articulate that justification for a general legal readership. /Type /Page 0000001809 00000 n cf A Frame, Colonizing Attitudes towards Maori Custom (1981) NZLJ 105; MR Litchfield, Confiscation of Maori Land (1985) 15 Vict U Well L Rev 335. XCIC3MRM!t,k*8j7#`4 c`# 7A 0@ 185 0 obj <>stream Dispute Settlement in Aboriginal Communities, 29. Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286 Show simple item record Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286 Files in this item This item appears in the following Collection (s) Book chapters Contains book chapters authored 0000016429 00000 n Several propositions derived from the literature can be baldly stated, and then examined more closely. Lawyer Monthly is a news website and monthly legal publication with content that is entirely defined by the significant legal news from around the world. Indigenous Justice Mechanisms in some Overseas Countries: Models and Comparisons, 31. 0000003422 00000 n By this means the Australian colonies directly inherited a vast body of English statute and common law. There is now considerable evidence of Aboriginal techniques of land management and conservation, including the deliberate use of fire,[44] but Aborigines were not in the European sense a pastoral or farming people, if that was what was required. Aboriginal Legal Service >> Review of the Legislative Framework for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation, Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws, 2. Brennan Js decision recognised the indigenous right to occupancy of the land, sovereignty over which was acquired by the British Crown.14 The occupancy of the Aboriginal people, in the absence of any claim to sovereignty, gave them ownership as first taker. /Type /Page 0000063863 00000 n They held that New South Wales should be treated as a settled colony as at 1788, such that applicable English law arrived with the first settlers. He examined Chief Justice Marshalls famous American judgments on the subject, Storeys Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Kents Commentaries on American Law and various Colonial Office documents relating to an attempt by William Wentworth to purchase land from Maori people directly and without the involvement of the Crown.1 The 9 July proceedings centred on the Claims to Grants of Land in New Zealand Bill, which was designed to render null and void Wentworth and others purported purchase of Maori land. Cooper. [27] Justice Blackburn in Milirrpums case put the distinction thus: There is a distinction between settled colonies, where the land, being desert and uncultivated, is claimed by right of occupancy, and conquered or ceded colonies. The landowner argued that this reservation was invalid because it was against a long-standing principle of property law known as 'the rule against perpetuities'. Of course, deciding where nomadic peoples actually occupied the land was a nonsense, but it grounded the colonial project in Australia and New Zealand. Most recently,was included inThe Best Lawyers in Australia2021 forCorporate Law; Mining Law; Native Title Law; Oil & Gas Law. The attack went further: The defendants counsel maintained that there was a material difference between dominion, or the right of sovereignty over the soil and country, which were unquestionably in the Crown, and the possession or the title to the possession in or of that soils, with power to grant the same at her discretion, which title be broadly denied.9. The question is whether and how those laws and traditions, as they now exist, should be recognised. The Settled Colony Debate | ALRC Parliament, and want to work more slowly towards a national treaty.9 Nevertheless, Victoria and South Australia have started consultation towards provincial treaties.10 Proposition 10 is the consequence: On this view, Mabo is only a step on the path to the establishment of that legal relationship. %PDF-1.6 % But, we shall see in part 2, these cases were all to attack or defend the Crowns prerogative against settlers pushing the envelope to narrow that prerogative so as to enlarge individual rights in a colony far from the centre of British metropolitical power. << OCTOBER 1996] UNOSOM 923 - JSTOR The problem is how to explain how that ownership appeared to be ignored when the law was based on mere assertion and could hardly ground a reasonable justification for Crown absolute beneficial ownership of land, and when that common law was promulgated in the context of battles over the extent of the Crown prerogative in the new colony of NSW without reference to indigenous interests. 17 0 obj Difficulties of Application: The Status and Scope of the Interrogation Rules, 23. /Length 13 0 R Special Aboriginal Courts and Justice Schemes, Support Structures for the Aboriginal Courts, 30. When founded in 1952, the International and Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) was unique. Level 8, Waterfront Place, 1 Eagle Street, Brisbane Qld 4000. Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Rights: Legislation or Common Law? Aboriginal Customary Laws: Aboriginal Child Custody, Fostering and Adoption, Questions of Principle and Implementation, Federal, State and Territory Forums for Issues of Aboriginal Child Custody, Recognition of Customary or De Facto Adoption, Social Security and the Care and Custody of Aboriginal Children, 17. As a matter of present Australian law it is clear that the Crowns acquisition of sovereignty over Australia was an act of state unchallengeable in the courts. endobj Both in the Select Committee Report on New Zealand in 18442 and in the South Australian Letters Patent, the word actual qualified the indigenous right to occupation:3. id, 138. @*" b@ 'd"7Jd(./n,nA,ho+ +Z> c|>Tzb&8&B* `hbFGs.CLCE3ddFq1#:E ;=0hm'n*J+bafLl9S$S9ERL3dP &W2b -h 2 "B,2@)"":j,* (AF}2H\LY/rA\= On this view. The Crown in London gave up the fight to stop leases being given to those who had simply spread out beyond the limits of location, and passed the 1846 waste lands legislation providing for leases of Crown land. WebIn Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286, 29 it was held that Australia was Terra Nullius at the time of annexation and defined Australia. 63 19 13. >> It will examine these further three propositions: 1 Ulla Secher The doctrine of tenure in Australia post-Mabo: Replacing the feudal fiction with the mere radical title fiction Part 2 (2006) 13 Australian Property Law Journal 140, 2 Coe v Commonwealth (1979) 53 ALJR 403; Mabo v State of Queensland (no 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 31, 3 A Fitzmaurice The Genealogy of Terra Nullius (2007) 129 Australian Historical Studies at 7 quoting Francesco de Vitoria, 5 In re Southern Rhodesia, [1919] AC at 232, 6 Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara, [1975] ICJR at 39, 7 M Connor, The Invention of Terra Nullius: historical and legal fictions on the foundations of Australia Sydney: Maclaey Press 2005. At least that is what the law now says. /Length 10 0 R If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. 0000021511 00000 n George Street Post Shop This was not because necessarily indigenous rights were ignored. 0000064319 00000 n 2020 Peter O'Grady, Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window), Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window). Local Justice Mechanisms: Options for Aboriginal Communities, Aborigines as Officials in the Ordinary Courts. Jonathan applies his extensive projects, resources, native title and cultural heritage experience to mining, oil and gas transactions, renewable energy, infrastructure developments, joint venture arrangements, and asset and share sales and acquisitions across Australia and internationally.

william cooper v stuart 2023