![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg/640px-Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg.png&w=640&q=50)
Love v Commonwealth
2020 case in High Court of Australia / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Love v Commonwealth?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Love v Commonwealth; Thoms v Commonwealth is a High Court of Australia case that held that Aboriginal Australians could not be classified as aliens under section 51(xix) of the Australian Constitution. The case was decided on 11 February 2020.
Quick Facts Love v Commonwealth; Thoms v Commonwealth, Court ...
Love v Commonwealth; Thoms v Commonwealth | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | High Court of Australia |
Argued | 8 May 2019; 5 December 2019 |
Decided | 11 February 2020 |
Citations | [2020] HCA 3 (2020) 270 CLR 152 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ |
Case opinions | |
(Love) (4:3) Aboriginal Australians (understood according to the 3-part test in Mabo v Queensland (No 2)) are not within the reach of the "aliens" power conferred by s 51(xix) of the Constitution). The Court is unable, however, to agree as to whether Mr Love is an Aboriginal Australian and unable to determine whether Mr Love is an "alien" under section 51(xix) of the Australian Constitution. (Thoms) (4:3) Aboriginal Australians (understood according to the 3-part test in Mabo v Queensland (No 2)) are not within the reach of the "aliens" power conferred by s 51(xix) of the Constitution. Mr Thoms is an Aboriginal Australian and is not an alien under section 51(xix) of the Australian Constitution. | |
Concurrence | Bell, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ |
Dissent | Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane JJ |
Close