Ackroyd v McKechnie [1986] HCA 43

High Court of Australia Gibbs C.J. Mason, Wilson, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ. Ackroyd v McKechnie [1986] HCA 43

ORDER Answer the questions as follows:

(a) Were the birds at the time they were seized and detained by the fauna officer the subject of trade, commerce and intercourse between the States within the meaning of s. 92 of the Constitution?

Answer: Yes.

(b) Is s. 64(3) of the Act invalid in so far as it would apply to fauna the subject of trade, commerce and intercourse between the States?

Answer: Yes.

(c) Is s. 64(3) of the Act invalid in so far as it applies to fauna sent or brought into the State of Queensland in the course of interstate trade?

Answer: Yes.

(d) Is s. 64(3), when read together with s. 14(1)(g) of the Act, invalid in so far as it would operate to give a fauna officer power to seize and detain fauna the subject of trade, commerce and intercourse between the States?

Unnecessary to answer.

(e) Is s. 64(3), when read together with s. 14(1)(g) of the Act, invalid in so far as it would operate to give a fauna officer power to seize and detain fauna sent or brought into the State of Queensland in the course of interstate trade?

Unnecessary to answer.

Order that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of these proceedings to be taxed.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Aug. 6 Gibbs C.J.

This stated case raises for decision the effect of s. 92 of the Constitution on s. 64 of the Fauna Conservation Act 1974 Q, as amended and in force on 23 February 1984 ("the Act"). Section 64 provides as follows:

(1) The Under Secretary, Conservator or other officer authorized by either of them in that behalf may, upon application and upon being satisfied that authority for the exportation of the fauna from the State or Territory of the Commonwealth, or country, if required, has been obtained, grant and issue a permit in writing to any person authorizing him to send or bring into the State of Queensland fauna of any kind.