General Features of the Australian Legal System - Research Paper Example

Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : Australian legal system Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 General features of the Australian legal system 4 Introduction 4 Common belief on justice 4 Powers evenly distributed 5 Common law 5 The courts 7 Legal aid and representation 8 Investigating complaints and administrative decisions 9 Administrative Appeals Tribunal 10 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 10 Law enforcement and police 11 Australian Crime Commission 11 International legal cooperation and treaties 12 Comparison between Indonesia law system and the Australian legal organization 13 Complex legal system 13 Constitutional Structure 14 Legislation 15 Courts 15 Legal Professionals 16 Advocates 17 Legal consultant 17 Effect of English settlement on the indigenous inhabitants of Australia 17 Colonization or invasion 18 Dispossession 18 The diminishing accessibility of appropriate land in Australia resulted in several expeditions to look for more fertile grazing land. New South Wales Governor made efforts to control the settlement and spread of settlement in the land. His initiatives were spearheaded by the need control of the settlements of the colonial law enforcers rather than the need to protect the original, Indigenous inhabitants of the land. As squatters continued to occupy more of the idle land outside the territory of the Governor, they started to invade more and more of the Indigenous sacred sites, hunting grounds and food sources (Kreiken, 2000). The settlers entirely overlooked the deep spiritual associations the Aboriginal peoples had within the land. They had the belief that the Aboriginals were more comfortable with the new land as a result of nomadic way of life that they exhibited. The Indigenous peoples always came back to their land to replenish it (Kreiken, 2000). 19 Diseases 19 While the British settlers played an active role in the intentional efforts to eradicate the Aboriginal peoples, the settlers unknowingly played a role in the deaths of many of them during the peaceful contacts. The Aboriginal peoples did not have enough resistance to uncommon diseases and were highly affected by the diseases. Within a short while most of the Indigenous population had been cleared by the diseases. The introduction of STDs reduced their numbers due to infertility and negative impacts on their reproduction patterns (Kreiken, 2000). 19 Violent conflict 20 At first, fear and inquisitiveness were common among the Aboriginal persons and the British early settlers. Cultural conflicts over land, however, made the original efforts to establish a peaceful relationship seem unsuccessful. The settler and the Aboriginal people felt that they were under pressure to survive and this led to conflicts between then over land. These conflicts led to deaths of several Aboriginal peoples. At time the Aboriginal resistance to the white settlers’ domination yielded positive results but in most cases they were on the receiving end. Many times the settlers devised new ways and means of eradicating the Aboriginal people. Instead of physically fighting the Aboriginal people, the settlers used other ways such as poisoning their water and food recourses. Another method that they used to drive them away was setting up the Native Police Forces to tame them. The settlers also took advantage of the tribal rivalries between the Aboriginal Peoples to initiate conflicts between them. Violence towards the Aboriginal peoples continued in several parts of Australia until the 3rd decade in the 20th century (Wooten, 1994). 20 The impact of Mabo v Queensland (No2) (1992)175 CLR 1 case 20 Background of the case 21 Conclusion 22 Bibliography 22 Tabalujan, B. 2002. Features - The Indonesian Legal System: An Overview Dec 2, 2002/ accessed August 9, 2010 online 24 General features of the Australian legal system Introduction Legal system in Australian is based on the doctrines of rule of the law, integrity and the sovereignty of the judiciary. All the people both Australians and the foreigners are accorded the same treatment before the law and controls exist to ensure that every person is treated fairly and constitutionally by government agencies and officials. This is different from the legal systems in other countries in Europe, South America and Japan whose legal systems are derived from the Romans. Other nations with different systems include US, Canada, New Zealand, Malaysia as well as India. This paper examines in detail the salient features of the Australian legal system. Common belief on justice The legal system of Australia is based on a common belief on justice, rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. Everyone whether an Australian or non-Australian is treated equaly before the law. There are safeguards in the country that ensures that no one receives unfair or arbitrary treatment from the officials or the government. The fundamental principles in the Australia’s legal system are the procedural equality, separation of powers as well as judicial precedent. Just like in the United Kingdom, the common law forms the foundation for the Australian jurisprudence (Australian Government, 2008). Powers evenly distributed The 1901 constitution of Australia developed a federal system of administration upon which authority is evenly distributed between the states and the federal government. The constitution outlines both the exclusive powers as well as the concurrent powers. The nations and states have independent legislative power in all issues not particularly assigned to the federal government (Australian Government, 2008). In case of any variation between the territory and federal laws, the federal laws will always prevail. The whole of Australia is affected equally by the federal law. Basically, Australia has a total number of nine legal systems where there are one federal system, and eight territory and state systems (Australian Government, 2008). Common law The legal system of Australia is strongly formed by the British antecedents. When Australia was under the British, the British common law and statute law as they were applied to the situation of the new colony immediately formed the foundation of the new colony’s legal system. This was the ruling legal theory in the 18th century as related to the uncultivated and desert lands. Despite the existence of an extensive indigenous population, Australia was not concerned on this population at that time. The new settler legal system never recognized the indigenous rights of the Australians to their land and this continued for a period of two centuries. In the 1970s there was creation of the limited statutory rights however; it was not till 1992 that the High Court agreed for the recognition of the common law in form of subject title (Taylor & Laster, 1994). This decision came with lots of criticism from the public on the basis of its supposed “activism”, despite of the fact that the rights that were recognized were so fragile. Despite the continued worse relation to situate the indigenous Australia, the state governments along with Australian national have over the years been active in directing other aspects of the economy and society in social-liberal or social-democratic directions mainly in their ways. First and foremost, they have formed a strong welfare state. Secondly, they have highly dependent on state controlled and state owned enterprises. Finally, they have effected very important modifications of the statutory of the common law (Taylor & Laster, 1994). For the rationale of this paper, one example of the last phenomenon will be discussed. The Australian legislatures have modified in an extensive manner the unwritten common law of agreement in the commercial as well as consumer context. The principal provision from the statutory, which takes place in the state and national legislation, forbids traders from engaging in deceptive or misleading conduct during the course of their trading practices. Accompanied with a wide remedial power, this provision has turned to be the mainstay of commercial and consumer litigation. Basically, it can avoid some limitations of the common law particularly limitations on damages for misrepresentations that are innocent. The statutory prohibition that has been coupled with prohibitions on unconscionable conduct as well as unfair contract terms, the statutory prohibition on deceptive and misleading conduct represents an extensive statutory intervention into the field of the common law. The fundamental interest of this example is based on the dynamics surrounding the interpretations of the statutory provisions (Cannon, 2008). The courts The interpretations and applications of the law in Australia are done by the High Court of Australia. Moreover the High Court makes decision regarding the cases that have special federal importance including the challenges posed to the validity of laws in the constitution and also takes heeds on appeals from the state, federal and territory court (Taylor & Laster, 1994). Besides the Chief Justice, the High Court has six judges who can either preside together or individually. The High Court is the highest court of appeal concerning all issues, whether decided in the state or federal jurisdictions. Other federal courts include the Federal Court of Australia, the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia. Basing on the constitution, territory and state courts may be provided with federal jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the federal court is somehow wide as it covers nearly all civil matters that arise under the federal law of Australia along with some other summary criminal matters. In addition the court has diverse and substantial appellate jurisdiction incorporating over decisions made by the single judges of the Federal Magistrates Court and Federal Court and some other decisions of the territory and state courts (Booker et al, 1998). The Family Court is the highest court in Australia in family law. The court has specialized staff and judges that assist in resolving family disputes that appear complex. The court in addition deals with specialized areas linked to the Hague Convention concerning International Child Abductions and those that relates to relocation of children internationally by guardians and parents (Taylor & Laster, 1994). The federal parliament established the Federal Magistrates Court in 1999 and made its first sittings in 2000. The jurisdiction of this court entails family law, unlawful discrimination, privacy, bankruptcy, consumer protection and industrial law among others. Almost the entire jurisdiction of this court is shared by the Federal Court or the Family Court (Booker et al, 1998). Territory as well as state courts deal with criminal matters arising under state, federal or territory law. The territory and state court system functions independently. Some states have some courts of criminal appeal that forms the highest appellate courts while all states have supreme courts. Courts referred to as ‘country’ or ‘district’ handle more serious cases where the judge preside over the court playing the function of interpreting and determining the law (Taylor & Laster, 1994). For charges that appear more serious, the jury which normally is made up of twelve people determines the innocence or guilt of defendants. Serious offences like rape, armed robbery and murder are mostly tried in the higher court (Booker et al, 1998). Lesser offences are handled in the lower courts, referred to as magistrates or local courts, where magistrates determine the innocence or guilt of defendants. In all cases, the court considers defendants as innocent until they are proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. In Australia, death penalty is not in the constitution (Booker et al, 1998). Legal aid and representation The government of Australia identifies that access to legal presentation is a significant component in ensuring justice for everybody. They offer some legal assistance for people evaluated as being least capable to manage to pay for court appearance. The Department of the Federal Attorney- General has responsibilities of administering support for the legal aid services’ provision for federal law matters via commissions for legal aid, governing a Community Legal Services Program and administering legal aid services specifically for Indigenous Australians. Territory and state governments provide fund to the legal aid services particularly for cases that are tried under territory and state law (Hughes et al, 2003). In Australia, there are a total number of eight independent legal aid commissions where there is only one in each of the territories and states, with a whole budget of about $400 million. The state, territory along with federal governments provides the funding (Hughes et al, 2003). Investigating complaints and administrative decisions There are specific agencies in Australia whose responsibility is to protect the administrative and legal rights for everybody in Australia. Such agencies include the Migration Review Tribunal, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Refugee Review Tribunal (Hughes et al, 2003). In 1977, the position of the Commonwealth Ombudsman was formed to investigate and consider complaints from individuals holding the allegation of unreasonable or unfair treatment from the government agency or department. The ombudsman can not under any conditions give directions to the agency staff or even override decisions originally made by agencies. However, the ombudsman can resolve disputes through the process of negotiations or consultations and if need be, make formal recommendations to the senior levels of the government (Australian Government, 2008). Between 2006 and 2007, the Commonwealth Ombudsman had almost 33,000 complaints and approaches which resulted to at least 4000 investigations. 4% of the recorded cases were found to have government agent deficient or error. In 1971 an ombudsman was appointed in Western Australia while others were appointed in Victoria in 1972, New South Wales in 1974 and finally Queensland in 1974. The Commonwealth Ombudsman serves as ombudsman specifically for the Australian Capital Territory. There are two distinct tribunals that offer self-regulating and final merits reviews concerning decisions made regarding the visas to stay or enter in Australia. The review made by the Migration Review Tribunal concerns the general visas and includes students, visitors, business, partners and family. On the other hand the Refugee Review Tribunal handles decisions linked to protecting the refugee visas (Australian Government, 2008). Administrative Appeals Tribunal The Administrative Appeals Tribunal which forms a part of the federal portfolio of the Attorney General started its operations in July 1976. It is a self regulating body that performs merits reviews of extensive administrative decisions that are pronounced by federal government ministers, authorities and officials and by other tribunals. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has its own jurisdiction of reviewing decisions that are formed under almost 400 distinct Acts and legislative instruments (Australian Government, 2008). Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was formed in 1986 as a self governing statutory organization that reports to the federal government via the Attorney General. The commission has specific goals such as fostering understanding about human right and protecting the same in Australia along with looking into human rights concerns. It has some functions such as solving complaints regarding breaches of human rights or discrimination under the federal law. In addition the commission holds public analysis into issues touching on human rights that seem importance to the nation (Taylor & Laster, 1994). Law enforcement and police In Australia the police have an obligation of upholding order and tranquility in the community. In addition they have an added responsibility of taken to court individuals whom they believe have gone against the law. Though, the police may arrest persons and offer evidence in court, they hold no right in declaring people as being guilty of crimes. This is the obligation of the court. The Australian Federal Police is the national police force for the country. Its responsibilities are holding investigations concerning crimes against federal laws such as illegal immigrations, crimes against the environment, drug trafficking as well as crimes against national security. The Northern Territory along with all states in Australia has their separate police forces that handle crimes under territory or state laws. The Australian Federal Police handle the Policing specifically in the Australian Capital Territory (Taylor & Laster, 1994). Australian Crime Commission The Australian Crime Commission was formed in January 2003 and its establishment brought the replacement of the National Crime Authority. It was created to act as an independent statutory body to cooperate together with the state, federal and territory agencies. Its principle responsibility is to counter organized and serious crimes. The commission unites together all divisions of the Australian intelligence gathering as well as law enforcement to organize the fight against serious crime. International legal cooperation and treaties Australia focuses on maintaining international cooperation particularly in the legal sector. As a result the International Legal Services Advisory Council was established by the federal government in 1990 to enhance globalization of legal services. The councils focus in enhancing understanding in various legal systems, laws and legal institutions of different countries specifically in areas of business, trade as well as international law. The council in addition contributes to the progress of the legal interchanges and contacts and legal training, education and institutions (Taylor & Laster, 1994). Another higher priority in Australia is that of combating terrorism and transnational crime. The major tools for fighting this are extradition and mutual assistance. Through the international cooperation, the criminals find it hard to avoid justice by crossing borders. The country has so far formed formal extradition agreements with about 120 countries. The country forms a party to a wide range of treaties which forms formal instruments particularly of international law. Currently, Australia is bound to agreements concerning expanding and wide range of issues that concerns shipping, postal health arrangement, social security and defense and security. Other matters concern the environment, maritime delimitation, nuclear non-proliferation and technological exchanges. Moreover the country is concerned with agreements formed to create universal standards that concerns how civilian ought to be treated in times of war. The country has been involved heavily on global measures that could finally outlaw the utilization of weapons of mass destruction. At the same time the country has been active in works on features of the international trading system and law of the sea (Australian Government, 2008). Comparison between Indonesia law system and the Australian legal organization Complex legal system Unlike the Australian legal system that looks simple as it is influenced by one system the Common law, the Indonesia legal system is a bit complex as it is influenced by three different systems. This is as a result of the initial appearance colonists and Dutch traders in the 16th century as well as early 17th century. During this time what prevailed were the indigenous kingdoms that applied a system of customary law. The legacy of the Dutch colonial law was left after the presence of the Dutch that continued for a period of 350 years till the last part of World War II. Even today some of the colonial legislation still applies today in Indonesia. Consequently, after gaining independence in 17 August 1945, the authorities in Indonesia started forming a national legal system that was based on precepts of justice and law of Indonesia (Tabalujan, 2002). The three strands, namely the Dutch colonial law, adat or customary law and national law are still present in the modern Indonesia. For instance, the commercial law is based on Commercial Code 1847, which is a historical object of the colonial period. In addition the same commercial law is supplemented by other new laws that were enacted after independence. These laws include the 1992 Banking Law, the 1995 Company Law, and Capital Market Law of 1995 along with the Antimonopoly law of 1999 and the 2001 Oil and Natural Gas Law (Tabalujan, 2002). Constitutional Structure To get a good understanding of the legal system of Indonesia, it is important to have some information regarding background information concerning the constitutional structure of Indonesia. The country is a unitary republic that was established after the declaration of the constitution in 1945 after independence. The 1945 constitution was not amended for 32 years during the reign of Soeharto. In May 1998, the 1945 constitution was modified for four times that is in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. Besides other important things, the amendments deals with matters such as formation of additional constitutional bodies such as the Constitutional Court, decentralization of authority to regional and provincial government from central government and limitations of president’s powers among other issues (Tabalujan, 2002). The most important constitutional bodies in the 1945 constitution are the House of People’s Legislative body (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat or DPR) and People’s Consultative Assembly (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat or MPR). The former plays the function of making legislation and holding the ministers and President accountable. According to the constitution, the later is the supreme state body and therefore has powers to make amendment on the constitution. It has the obligation of giving policy statements that are based on resolutions. Before, this body was actively involved in electing the President as well as the Vice President but after the amendments, this responsibility was left to the people. The presidential powers have also been reduced by the recent constitution amendment. Despite of this, the President still holds a powerful position in the country as he is the head of government and head of state and also the highest commander of the armed forces (Tabalujan, 2002). Legislation The legislation of the modern Indonesia appears in a number of forms. The different of sources and categories of legislation forms a huge task particularly to foreigners who seek to comprehend Indonesian law. While seeking effort to offer clarification on the status of different types of legislation, the MPR gave the official hierarchy of legislation in August 2000. The hierarchy starts with the 1945 Constitution, MPR Resolution Law, Government Regulation Substituting a Law, Government Regulation, Presidential Decree and finally the Regional Regulation. In practice other legislative tools that are in current use include Presidential Institutions, Ministerial Decrees and Circular Letters. Once publicized, the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia has the responsibility of publishing the legislation. An official explanatory memorandum referred to as the Elucidation accompany particular types of legislation like the Laws and Government Regulations (Tabalujan, 2002). Courts Several types of courts are comprised in the judicial system of Indonesia under the supervision of the Supreme Court. In contrast to Australia that applies the precedent principle, Indonesia courts is bound to the civil law tradition and hence does not follow the common law jurisdiction. Many disputes are first represented in the courts of general jurisdiction with the State Court being the first instance. There are a total number of 250 State Courts in Indonesia and every court has its territorial jurisdiction. Appeals made in the State Court are dealt with in the High Court of which there are about 20 of them in the whole of Indonesia. The High Court serves as a district court of appeal. The Supreme Court which is located in Jakarta may handle appeals from the State Court and the High Court. In addition the Supreme Court may handle cassation appeal from the lower courts. In addition the court may also carry out a case review if for instance new evidence sprout up and justifies a re-hearing (Pompe, 2005). Legal Professionals There are three different sectors of legal professionals in Indonesia namely; advocates, notaries and legal consultants. The notary who is an official that is legally trained is elected by the Department of Justice and Human Rights to notarise deeds. The notarized deed which is referred to as the authentic deed is taken to be a formal deed that is prepared and executed just before a notary. Some legal documents at law require notarized deeds. Notarization offers a verification that the law perfectly executed the deed and that it consist of matters of interest. For instance, any one wishing to start a company will have an assistance of a notary because the deed of establishment should be executed when he is present. The notary does not give legal advice to parties that appear before him simply because he is a government appointee (Lindsey, 2008). Advocates The advocates usually have formal legal training and are lawyers specifically in the private practice. They are equivalent to the attorneys of the United States and solicitors in England. Most of the advocates base their focus on litigation though others offer general legal advice. As a result of limited size of the advocate’s practices, those who serve in the smaller firms may lack adequate expertise in providing advice concerning commercial law on international business transactions. Legal consultant The emergence of the legal consultant as separate group of legal professionals began in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This was the same time when the foreign investors began their venture into Indonesia in large numbers. Though most legal consultants are advocates, they avoid accepting litigation cases. Since most of the legal consultants have acquired advanced legal training, they prefer to concentrate in offering legal advice as well as documentation for commercial, corporate, banking along with cross-border matters (Tabalujan, 2002). Effect of English settlement on the indigenous inhabitants of Australia European settlement had a harsh and distressing impact on Indigenous people. Their dispossession of land, risk to new diseases and participation in violent conflict led to deaths of a large number of the Aboriginal people. The impact of the white settlers transformed their lives and the lives of their future generations (Silverstein, 2007). Colonization or invasion The settlement of Englishmen in Australia was viewed as some form of colonization or invasion. An example of an invasion by the Englishmen is the occupation of the Eastern part of Australia by Captain James Cook. When he arrived about 750,000 Aboriginal people lived in Australia. These individuals were divided into several different tribes each with its own language. These people moved to the Australia more than 50,000 years ago. They settled in the land and developed their own patterns of lives depending on their religious and spiritual beliefs (Silverstein, 2007). Regardless of significant of the presence of these individuals, the British regarded the Australian continent to be a terra nullius within the English law. Terra nullius is derived from Latin and it means 'land belonging to no one.' Eight years afterwards, the British proceeded with their plans to create a penal colony in New South Wales. They thus settled in the land and took possession of it (Silverstein, 2007). Dispossession The diminishing accessibility of appropriate land in Australia resulted in several expeditions to look for more fertile grazing land. New South Wales Governor made efforts to control the settlement and spread of settlement in the land. His initiatives were spearheaded by the need control of the settlements of the colonial law enforcers rather than the need to protect the original, Indigenous inhabitants of the land. As squatters continued to occupy more of the idle land outside the territory of the Governor, they started to invade more and more of the Indigenous sacred sites, hunting grounds and food sources (Kreiken, 2000). The settlers entirely overlooked the deep spiritual associations the Aboriginal peoples had within the land. They had the belief that the Aboriginals were more comfortable with the new land as a result of nomadic way of life that they exhibited. The Indigenous peoples always came back to their land to replenish it (Kreiken, 2000). Diseases While the British settlers played an active role in the intentional efforts to eradicate the Aboriginal peoples, the settlers unknowingly played a role in the deaths of many of them during the peaceful contacts. The Aboriginal peoples did not have enough resistance to uncommon diseases and were highly affected by the diseases. Within a short while most of the Indigenous population had been cleared by the diseases. The introduction of STDs reduced their numbers due to infertility and negative impacts on their reproduction patterns (Kreiken, 2000). Violent conflict At first, fear and inquisitiveness were common among the Aboriginal persons and the British early settlers. Cultural conflicts over land, however, made the original efforts to establish a peaceful relationship seem unsuccessful. The settler and the Aboriginal people felt that they were under pressure to survive and this led to conflicts between then over land. These conflicts led to deaths of several Aboriginal peoples. At time the Aboriginal resistance to the white settlers’ domination yielded positive results but in most cases they were on the receiving end. Many times the settlers devised new ways and means of eradicating the Aboriginal people. Instead of physically fighting the Aboriginal people, the settlers used other ways such as poisoning their water and food recourses. Another method that they used to drive them away was setting up the Native Police Forces to tame them. The settlers also took advantage of the tribal rivalries between the Aboriginal Peoples to initiate conflicts between them. Violence towards the Aboriginal peoples continued in several parts of Australia until the 3rd decade in the 20th century (Wooten, 1994). The impact of Mabo v Queensland (No2) (1992)175 CLR 1 case The Mabo v Queensland (No2) (1992)175 CLR 1 case played a very significant role in overturning the principle OF TERRA NULLIUS. The Mabo decision changed the foundation of land law in Australia by toppling the principle of terra nullius which was the grounds on which the British settlers disposed the Aboriginal people of their land. This nullification of the terra nullius doctrine brought a new meaning to the concept of native title to the Australian law. The judgments of the High Court in the case acknowledged the traditional rights of the Merian people to their Island in the eastern side of Torres Strait. The Court also ruled that native titles were present to all Indigenous people in Australia before the creation of the British protectorate of New South Wales in 1788. By ruling that the native people of Australia had titles to their land before the dispossession by the British forces, the Court recognized the existence of the titles of the pieces of land where such titles have not been legally tempered with. This ruling by the court was quickly followed by the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) which seeks to strengthen the natives’ title rights (Robson, 2006). Background of the case On 20 May 1982, Eddy Koiki Mabo, Sam Passi, , Celia Mapo Salee David Passi and James Rice charged for the claim of rights of the land in the island of Mer in the Torres Strait between Australia and Papua New Guinea. The High Court wanted the Supreme Court to analyze the facts on the case. While the case was in the Queensland Court, the Torres Strait Islands Coastal Islands Act was approved. The act had nullified any land rights that the people had over land in the Island. The main issue was that the Act was in contrast to the Commonwealth racial biasness Act of 1975 and was thus void. Six of the judges decided that the Meriam people did have customary ownership of their land, with Justice Dawson not conforming to the decision. The judges thus ruled that the settlers’ possession of the land did not make the titles or right held by the Islanders invalid and were thus entitled to whole possession of the Island for any use that they desired (Robson, 2006). Conclusion The Australian legal system is one of the best systems in the world since it is non-discriminative to every person living in the country. This ruling of the Mabo v Queensland (No2) (1992)175 CLR 1 case is considered a land mark since it spelled a new beginning and a relief to the Aboriginal people in Australia. The case formed a basis on which they could reclaim their land from the British Settlers (Robson, 2006). Bibliography Australian Government. 2008. Legal system. March 2008/ accessed August 9, 2010 online Bedner, A. 2001. Executive courts in Indonesia: a socio-legal study. Netherlands, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Booker, K., Glass, A. & Watt, R. 1998. Federal Constitutional Law: An Introduction. Sydney, Butterworths. Cannon, A. 2008. Lessons from the Australian constitution: an introduction to the Australian legal system. Britain, LIT Verlag Münster. Fisher, S. & MacFarlan, P. 1996. Churches, clergy and the law. Sydney, Federation Press. Hughes, R., Leane, G.& Clarke, A. 2003. Australian Legal Institutions: Principles, Structure and Organizations. Sydney, Thomson. Lindsey, T. 2008. Indonesia, law and society. Sydney, Federation Press. Kreiken, R: 2000, 'From Milirrpum to Mabo: the High Court, terra nullius and moral entrepreneurship' (2000) 23 NSWLJ 63-77 Pompe, S. 2005. The Indonesian Supreme Court: a study of institutional collapse. Ithaca, SEAP Publications. Robson, S. 2006, : Re-thinking Mabo as a clash of legal languages, PhD Thesis, Division of Arts, Murdoch College, 2006. Silverstein, B. 2007, ‘The rule of resident title: a view of Mabo in the British Empire’ Griffith Law Evaluation, Vol 16, No. 1, 2007. Tabalujan, B. 2002. Features - The Indonesian Legal System: An Overview Dec 2, 2002/ accessed August 9, 2010 online Taylor, T. & Laster, K. 1994. Interpreters and the legal system. Sydney, Federation Press. Wooten, Hal. ‘Mabo: Issues and Tests ’, Judicial Assessment, Vol 1, No 4, March 1994, pp 303-365. Read More