This book considers the relationship between proportionality and facts in constitutional adjudication. Analysing where facts arise within each of the three stages of the structured proportionality test – suitability, necessity, and balancing – it considers the nature of these ‘facts’ vis-à-vis the facts that arise in the course of ordinary litigation. The book’s central focus is on how proportionality has been applied by courts in practice, and it draws on the comparative experience of four jurisdictions across a range of legal systems. The central case study of the book is Australia, where the embryonic and contested nature of proportionality means it provides an illuminating study of how facts can inform the framing of constitutional tests. The rich proportionality jurisprudence from Germany, Canada, and South Africa is used to contextualise the approach of the High Court of Australia and to identify future directions for proportionality in Australia, at a time when the doctrine is in its formative stages. The book has three broad aims: First, it considers the role of facts within proportionality reasoning. Second, it offers procedural insights into fact-finding in constitutional litigation. Third, the book’s analysis of the dynamic Australian case-law on proportionality means it also serves to clarify the nature and status of proportionality in Australia at a critical moment. Since the 2015 decision of McCloy v New South Wales, where four justices supported the introduction of a structured three-part test of proportionality, the Court has continued to disagree about the utility of such a test. These developments mean that this book, with its doctrinal and comparative approach, is particularly timely.
Show moreThis book considers the relationship between proportionality and facts in constitutional adjudication. Analysing where facts arise within each of the three stages of the structured proportionality test – suitability, necessity, and balancing – it considers the nature of these ‘facts’ vis-à-vis the facts that arise in the course of ordinary litigation. The book’s central focus is on how proportionality has been applied by courts in practice, and it draws on the comparative experience of four jurisdictions across a range of legal systems. The central case study of the book is Australia, where the embryonic and contested nature of proportionality means it provides an illuminating study of how facts can inform the framing of constitutional tests. The rich proportionality jurisprudence from Germany, Canada, and South Africa is used to contextualise the approach of the High Court of Australia and to identify future directions for proportionality in Australia, at a time when the doctrine is in its formative stages. The book has three broad aims: First, it considers the role of facts within proportionality reasoning. Second, it offers procedural insights into fact-finding in constitutional litigation. Third, the book’s analysis of the dynamic Australian case-law on proportionality means it also serves to clarify the nature and status of proportionality in Australia at a critical moment. Since the 2015 decision of McCloy v New South Wales, where four justices supported the introduction of a structured three-part test of proportionality, the Court has continued to disagree about the utility of such a test. These developments mean that this book, with its doctrinal and comparative approach, is particularly timely.
Show more1. Introduction I. Proportionality and Facts A. What is Proportionality? B. Proportionality in Australia C. Why Facts Matter II. The Aim and Scope of this Book III. Methodology and Comparative Context A. Choice of Comparators B. The Australian Constitutional Framework C. The Comparative Context IV. The Structure of the Book 2. The Fact-Dependent Nature of Proportionality I. Proportionality: A Structured Approach A. Legitimate Aim B. Suitability C. Necessity D. Balancing II. The Nature of Proportionality Reasoning A. Types of Decisions Involved in Assessing Proportionality B. Factual Elements in Proportionality III. Conclusion: Proportionality and Facts 3. Understanding Facts I. What are Facts? II. Classifying Facts A. Kenneth Culp Davis and the Distinction between Adjudicative Facts and Legislative Facts B. ‘Legislative Facts’ and their Alternatives C. Evaluating the Categories III. Facts and Proportionality A. The Suitability Stage: Purpose and Rational Connection B. The Necessity Stage: Predictions and Counterfactuals C. Balancing and Facts IV. Conclusion 4. Proportionality and Facts in Comparative Perspective I. Proportionality Compared II. Recognising Facts? A. The Relevance of Facts B. Differentiating Facts: The Various Stages of Proportionality Analysis III. Finding Facts? A. Informing the Court B. Deference to the Legislature IV. Conclusion 5. Proportionality in Australian Constitutional Law I. The Australian Adoption of Proportionality II. The Development of Proportionality A. The Development of Different Tests B. ‘Appropriate and Adapted’ versus ‘Proportionality’? C. McCloy and the Advent of Structured Proportionality III. Evaluating Proportionality A. Balancing B. Levels of Scrutiny IV. Conclusion 6. The Factual Basis of Proportionality in Australia I. Recognising Facts II. Facts and the Framing of Constitutional Tests A. Reasonably Capable of Being Considered Appropriate and Adapted B. Reasonably Appropriate and Adapted C. Reasonably Necessary D. Structured Proportionality III. The Correlation between Proportionality and Facts? IV. Conclusion 7. Procedural Implications I. The High Court’s Existing Approach: Limitations and Unresolved Issues A. High Court Procedures and their Limitations B. Unresolved Issues II. Recognising Facts: Implications for Procedure A. The Suitability Stage B. The Necessity and Balancing Stages III. Changing Facts and the Problem of Precedent IV. Conclusion 8. Conclusion: Why Facts Matter
This book uses rich proportionality jurisprudence from Australia, Germany, Canada, and South Africa to investigate the role of facts in constitutional adjudication.
Anne Carter is Senior Lecturer at Deakin Law School, Australia.
Dr Anne Carter [has] provided ... valuable contributions to the
literature considering the role of structured proportionality in
the Australian constitutional context.
*Bar News*
|
Ask a Question About this Product More... |
|
