![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The majority rejected the traditional feudal development of the doctrine of tenure as inappropriate for Australia, and rather saw that upon acquisition of sovereignty the Crown acquired not an absolute but for a radical title, and that title would be subject to native title rights where those rights had not been validly extinguished. Repudiation of absolute beneficial title of all lands: The majority in Mabo also rejected the proposition that immediately upon the acquisition of sovereignty, absolute beneficial ownership of all the lands of the Colony vested in the Crown.Instead, the rules for a 'settled' colony were said to be assimilated to the rules for a 'conquered' colony. The Court purported to achieve all this without altering the traditional assumption that the Australian land mass was 'settled'. Rejection of terra nullius: The decision recognised that the indigenous population had a pre-existing system of law, which, along with all rights subsisting thereunder, would remain in force under the new sovereign except where specifically modified or extinguished by legislative or executive action.native title could be extinguished by the valid exercise of governmental powers provided a clear and plain intention to do so was manifest.the nature and content of native title was determined by the character of the connection or occupation under traditional laws or customs and.the source of native title was the traditional connection to or occupation of the land.there was a concept of native title at common law. ![]() All of the judges, except Justice Dawson, agreed that: The decision was based on the findings of fact made by Justice Moynihan of the Supreme Court of Queensland: that the Mer Islanders had a strong sense of relationship to the islands and regarded the land as theirs. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |