Gratwick V. Johnson Case Analysis

In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution.
To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory. Paragraph

Imposition on Human Rights
The modern conception of civil liberties involves a long list of individual rights which include the right to liberty and security of person, rights to property and privacy, right to a fair trial and the rights to free speech. These civil and political rights are now framed as “human rights” and are protected by numerous international treaties.
Freedom of movement is also broadly recognised in international law and bills of rights. Article 13 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within borders of each state. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares that ‘Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.’ Governments and then subsequently the courts, have a duty to ensure that a person 's freedom of movement is not unjustifiably restricted by others, including persons or companies. This right applies to all persons lawfully within Australian and not just Australian