Back in 1984 the appellant Ronald Edward Sparrow was charged under the Fisheries Act with fishing using a drift net longer than what was permitted by his Band’s Indian food fishing license, the appellant was a member of the Musqueam Indian Band. (1083) The fishing which led to the appellant’s charge took place on May 25th, 1984 in an area known as Canoe Passage which is part of the area subject to the Band’s License. The appellant’s license which had been issued for a one-year period began on March 31st, 1984. (1083). It set out many different restrictions, one of which included that drift nets had a limit of 25 fathoms in length. The appellant was caught with a net which was 45 fathoms in length. He defended the charge on a basis that he was …show more content…
(1083). This leads to the appellant, Mr. Sparrow, basing his appeal on the fact that his existing aboriginal rights were being violated by the Band’s license. The parties are involved in this legal dispute to determine whether the appellant’s chargers may be dropped and the decision by the crown to be reversed. The appellant and the crown are arguing that from a legal stand point the appellant must follow the fishing regulations set by the appellant’s Band license. The appellant was convicted, the trial judge stated that an aboriginal right could not be claimed unless it was supported by a special treaty that section 35 of the Constitution Act,1982 accordingly had no application. (1076). Therefore, the appellant failed to appeal his case meaning the crown had won. The court justified is decision in the case by stating that, section 35 applies to rights in existence when the Constitution Act,1982 came into effect; it does not revive extinguished rights. An existing aboriginal right cannot be read to incorporate the specific way it was regulated before 1982. (1076). The term “existing aboriginal rights” must be interpreted loosely to allow them to evolve over time. The court also stated that nothing in the Fisheries Act demonstrates a clear and plain intention to extinguish the Indian aboriginal right to fish. (1076). Also stating that the fishing permits were simply a way to control the fisheries.
Allen v. Taku Safari Inc. [2003] B.C.J. No. 754, [2003] BCSC 516, 122 A.C.W.S (3d) 250, Victoria Registry No. 01 5499 Facts: Andre Allen (plaintiff) entered a contract with Taku Safari Inc. (defendant) in which Taku agreed to provide a guided hunt. Allen was required to travel to Juneau where Taku would provide a connecting flight directly to the hunt site, Inklin. Allen initially paid a deposit but was unable to participate in the hunt due to his flight being cancelled. Taku advised that they would try to accommodate Allen, even two day later, but could not guarantee the connecting flight.
Plaintiffs Paul and Verla Martin (the “Martins”) sued Defendant Reynolds Metal Co. (“Reynolds”) for damage to their land caused by invisible fluoride compounds that settled on their land from a nearby aluminum reduction plant run by Reynolds. The damage rendered the land unfit for raising livestock during the period from August 22, 1951 to January 1, 1956. The trial court awarded damages for that period from August 22, 1951 to January 1, 1956, a 4 and 1/2 year period, permissible under a trespass claim’s 6 year statute of limitations, in contrast to the 2 years of damages that would have been permitted under a nuisance claim’s 2 year statute of limitations’ period. Reynolds appealed on the issue of trespass. RULE OF LAW: A trespass is an
TThe 1999 autobiographical account, Is that you, Ruthie? by Ruth Hegarty provides an insightful portrayal of the harsh realities experienced by Indigenous Queenslanders, under the control of The Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld.). Hegartys’ account of the limited education of Indigenous Queenslanders living on reserves, highlights the intention for preordained employment outcomes governed by the 1897 Act. The Governor in Council was responsible for all matters pertaining to Indigenous Queenslanders (The Act 1897, s31.).
In 1992, the High Court of Australia rejected the notion of terra nullius, and legally recognised the occupation of Indigenous People’s before and during the process of British colonisation. It was the first time, in the eyes of the law, that Aboriginal people had been acknowledged as the traditional custodians of the land.
3. The gradual development of a new administrative and practical definition of ‘Aboriginality’. This definition was based on community and self-identification, not just a person’s DNA or
From this time, there were many momentous events that exacerbated the issue of Aboriginal Civil Rights in Australia and widened the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. The governments implementation of Protection and Assimilation policy had a major negative impact not only on Aboriginal Civil Rights but also created considerable disadvantage and disparity that today
Native title ’Native title’ refers to the recognition that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (ATSI) have rights to their traditional lands. For many years, native title has been an on-going topic across Australia, with many people disliking the concept. However, due to Australia’s changing social values and new concepts of justice, it has now been recently addressed. It is through the legal mechanisms such as the ALRC, the NSWLRC, the parliament and the courts and the non legal mechanism, the media that has been a catalyst for law reform for native title. Such mechanisms, have helped cases like the Mabo v Queensland [1988]
This issues paper will discuss the Northern Territory Intervention; how it has greatly affected Aboriginal peoples and communities; and how it is contrary to various international Human Rights standards and principles, as well as being discriminatory in nature. It is important to note the role and obligations of social workers in understanding the Government’s intention and policies, the impact of policies on peoples and communities and the consequences of significant policy change. It is a social workers’ obligation to aim for social justice, respect and equality in society including supporting issues that assist both individuals and communities, advocating for change where appropriate, and arguing against social disadvantage. There have
For over 40,000 years Indigenous Australians have enjoyed one of the most stable civilisations in the history of the planet. Through their complex social and spiritual systems they have maintained a historical record of all those has preceded them as well as maintained a harmonious balance between them and the local environment. This all changed once the convict fleet from England arrived, they claimed the land in the name of the crown believing the land was barren. This was based on the consideration that the indigenous population present were not civilised or more accurately what they saw didn’t meet their standard of what is civilised.
Lawmakers and criminal justice personnel are meant to be guarded against discriminatory laws, policies and practices and to guarantee equal and effective protection of the law to everyone. However, the sad reality is that discrimination does exist in our criminal justice system. This paper emphasises to show how certain groups in society such as the aboriginals or indigenous people have been discriminated against in some form or another by the police or by the criminal justice system itself. Racism and discrimination for Aboriginal people is a very real existence.
In Chapter 4 of Uneven Ground, Wilkins discusses the United States v. Winans case which regarded tribal rights. It held that the Yakamas tribe had “reserved rights” to hunt and fish because the Winans brothers had been depleting the salmon in the river. Wilkins also writes how the tribes implemented their rights based on their original and indigenous sovereignty. Chief Justice Fuller recognized this and confirmed the tribe’s rights to hunt and fish because of tribal sovereignty (125). In a similar case, Winters v. United States (1908), a man had built a dam that restricted all water flow down the Milk River.
Crucial civil liberties such as employment, custody of kids and management over private property were removed, which indicates that Aboriginal people were subject to just about entire control. British peoples ' focal aspiration of complete power is further depicted when Broome (2010, p.173) argues that the Boards wanted to reject Aboriginality altogether when it declined to acknowledge any Aboriginal people as Indigenous within Victoria. The effort to completely disregard or eliminate the Aboriginal way of life would have produced severe social impacts such as emotional and psychological pain; consequentially resulting in a sense of alienation and a loss of social identity. The rejection and isolation of the Aborigines from mainstream society strongly signifies that the actions used by Aboriginal Protection Boards were attempts to dispossess,
As time progressed the laws were slowly abolished but this did not make the white people show any sort of respect towards the aboriginal people. As time goes on Prime Ministers come and go, all were challenged with getting rid of the aboriginal laws, some made
In 1869, Victoria was the first to introduce The Aborigines Protection Act (Vic), giving the then Governor, omnipotence to remove Aboriginal children from their families, to be placed into industrial schools or reformatories. In NSW, in 1883, the NSW Aborigines Protection Board (APB) was created to provide aid and rations. However, additionally, it had a policy of controlling, segregating and forcefully removing Aboriginal children. The Board’s motive for removing these children was to save as many as possible from dying out. However, according to McGrath (1995), the true purpose of protection was really for the Government to exercise increased control over the Aboriginal people’s lives.
The courts held that the plaintiff does not need to be aware of the imprisonment, thus overruling Herring’s case. There is an intention to commit an act to detain, knowledge of the detention is unnecessary and false imprisonment will still be established. An exception of determining false imprisonment is when the plaintiff enters the property under certain conditions. In Robinson v Balmain Ferry Co Ltd, there was no false imprisonment because the plaintiff was subjected under the ferry’s regulation that a payment must be made upon entry and exit of the ferry. Hence the grounds for detaining the plaintiff were