UTS: Faculty of Law
70115 –
Perspectives on Law
Assignment 1: Option (2) Solicitor
1/11
70115 – Perspectives on law: Assignment 1 (Option 2)
Johanan Ottensooser: 10873305 – George Tian
Solicitor: ‘It doesn't matter that the original purpose of the Magna Carta has
been forgotten by many people today. The real importance of the Magna Carta
is that it continues to symbolise the power of the people against the State.’
Critically analyse this statement.
Magna Carta was born out of a turbulent time in English history: the brink of revolt, invasion and
civil war. The King’s misuse of power, with unjust taxes supporting fruitless and exorbitant royal
endeavours framed the year 1215. In pressuring the King to sign Magna Carta, the barons
secularised and institutionalised a national urge for revolution1. This essay will show that the
original purpose of Magna Carta is both legally and symbolically insignificant. This requires a
threefold analysis. First, historical analysis is necessary to explore the context of the document.
Second, an exploration of the original purpose of the document and its significance – especially in
the light of the deconstructivist ideas of the inferiority of “intention” as a literary reading2 – is
essential. Finally, an interrogation of its current legal weight and its symbolic complexity and
primacy in the representation of the power of the individual against the state allows for alternative
perspectives on the document.
Magna Carta
In defining Magna Carta’s context, two analyses are required: an analysis of the legal context and a
historiographical analysis of its changing representation in both the law and public opinion.
Before 1215, there existed a complex feudal system: all land seised3 from the King, who had direct
legal ownership of the whole of England4. The extension of tenure to Lords and commonfolk was
seemingly contractual, but only enforced by the King of “the lord’s moral or social obligation”5: the
common people had no legal right to the land, and, thus had no rights and little political sway. The
1
Peter Calvert, Revolution (1 ed, 1970) 63-67.
As per Roland Barthes, 'The Death of the Author' (1968) 5-6 Aspen item 3, essay 1.
3
“the possession of freehold land ... in fact ... [rather than] legal right”: Peter BA LLM(Hons)(Syd) et.al. (eds)
Butt, 'Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary' (2004), 329.
4
This was the relationship between the King and the Lords, where the King demanded knightly, and other,
services in exchange for land. Lords then made those below them tenants of the land, in the role of villeins,
socmen or frankalmoin, (who gave labour or free divine service as payment for the land): J. H. Baker, An
Introduction to English Legal History (4th ed, 2002) 227.
5
Ibid. 229.
2
2/11
70115 – Perspectives on law: Assignment 1 (Option 2)
Johanan Ottensooser: 10873305 – George Tian
people of the land lacked the legally enforceable rights and limits on power that are hallmarks of
modern democracy. In fact, legal rights only existed for aliens6.
There was, however, some measure of equality in the common law: the King’s justitiarii
itenerantes developed a bank of common decisions, which would become the common law7.
However, there was still no legal way to oppose the King’s decisions. This did not stop the nobility
from trying. The commonfolk swore oaths of fealty, not to the King, but to the barons, who could
then extend their power to try to influence the King through participation in the curia Regis, and
through intimidation8.
Also significant was the specific local and international political contemporary context, which was
quite complex. Two events triggered the escalation to the signing of Magna Carta: King John losing
England’s land stakes in France, and his dispute with the Pope Innocent III over the election of the
Archbishop of Canterbury. The Pope issued a papal bull that deposed the King, allowing the King
Philip of France to execute the bull. However, King John fixed relations with the Pope by making the
whole of England the Pope’s fiefdom and by increasing his tithe9.
However, with the subsequent defeat of King John and King Olaf of the Holy Roman Empire,
tensions between the barons and the King grew. Furthermore, the King’s taxes continued to grow10.
With the blessing of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Langton, the barons “insist[ed] on their
pretensions” and confronted the King. In 1215, faced by the armies of the confederated barons of
England, the King submitted to Magna Carta11, a more strongly worded and legally enforceable redraft of Henry’s Charter12.
Whereas the legal and historical contexts are identifiable, the ramifications are more complex. The
original 1215 Charter was effective for only a short duration, and there were many revisions to it in
between the years 1215-1297. The Magna Carta that was legally significant was the 1297
6
Geoffrey Robertson, Crimes Against Humanity (3rd ed, 1999) 2.
F.W. Maitland, The Constitutional History of England (1st ed, 1888) 64.
8
Robertson describes the King as ceding to the demands of “thuggish barons”: Geoffrey Robertson, Crimes
Against Humanity (3rd ed, 1999) 3.
9
Synthesised from: History of Law, Magna Carta history A.D. 1215 (2004)
<http://www.historyoflaw.info/magna-carta-history-a.d.-1215.html> at 15 September 2009; Bryce Lyons, 'XXII
Magna Carta and the Defeat of Angevin Absolutism', A Constitutional and Legal History of Medieval England
(2nd ed, 1980) 310-315, 317-319, 321.
10
In flagrant disregard to Henry the First’s 1101 Charter of Liberties especially clauses 5 - 7 regarding “normal”
taxation: The Charter of Liberties 1101 (England) 1-2 Hen I. As in Michael Evans, Sources of English Legal and
Constitutional History (1st ed, 1984) 49-50.
11
Magna Carta 1215 (England) 16 Jon I.
12
History of Law, Magna Carta history A.D. 1215 (2004) <http://www.historyoflaw.info/magna-carta-historya.d.-1215.html> at 15 September 2009.
7
3/11
70115 – Perspectives on law: Assignment 1 (Option 2)
Johanan Ottensooser: 10873305 – George Tian
inspeximus13, whereby Edward confirmed into legislation a modified Magna Carta14. The many
revisions of Magna Carta obscure its original purpose.
The Original Purpose
There are certain issues inherent in interpreting the original purpose of Magna Carta: which original
purpose should be analysed (and, as such “remembered” and taken into account in legal decisionmaking). The 1215 iteration of Magna Carta was a reaction to the complex political situation
described above. As such, it included clause 61, which reflected the council of barons’ intention to
subject the King to checks, effectively and legally limiting his power15. The 1297 iteration of Magna
Carta, however, did not include this security clause16. This due to the different contexts, including
the lack of baronial pressure in 1297, where King Edward I was merely confirming King John I’s17
charter in homage to King Henry III: as an act of good faith rather than overt military pressure. The
original purposes of these are complex and different, reducing the relevance of context and original
purpose in its application.
There is legal and philosophical precedent for the isolation of intention from application: namely the
rules of statutory interpretation and the literary analysis. Furthermore, the Tudors of England in mid
fifteenth to early sixteenth centuries put this in practice.
The common law rules of statutory interpretation developed much in the way that the
interpretation of Magna Carta has: starting literally, expanding through a purposive approach and,
finally, to a “golden rule” of “avoid[ing] obvious absurdities”18 and extracting the most proper
current reading. The literal approach would define the original purpose and interpret the Charter in
that context, which would be quite narrow. The mischief approach is more appropriate, looking not
only at what the Charter tried to do, but what it tried to prevent, allowing interpretation that is more
13
Confirmatio Cartarum 1297 (England) 25 Edw I.
Without clauses 10-12, 14-15, 19, 25, 27, 42, 44-45, 48-53, 55-59 and 61-63 of the 1215 Charter and with 6
additional clauses (numbered 12, 13, 21, 32, 35-36 in the 1297 Charter): Michael Evans, Sources of English
Legal and Constitutional History (1st ed, 1984) 55-56.
15
This clause extended the feudal concept of distraint - “the seizure and holding of property as ... satisfaction
of a claim” to the King (allowing the barons to, legally, sack the King’s property if he acts inappropriately) as
well as providing that the King’s swear fealty (for the first time in English law) to the council of barons: History
of Law, Magna Carta history A.D. 1215 (2004) <http://www.historyoflaw.info/magna-carta-history-a.d.1215.html> at 15 September 2009; Wordnet, 'Distraint' (2009) Princeton Wordnet
<http://www.google.com.au/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enAU344AU344&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF8&q=define:+Distraint> at 18/09/09.
16
See footnote 14.
17
And his parliament
18
Australian Law Postgraduate Network, Statutory Interpretation (2009) ALPN
<http://www.alpn.edu.au/node/72> at 19/09/09.
14
4/11
70115 – Perspectives on law: Assignment 1 (Option 2)
Johanan Ottensooser: 10873305 – George Tian
flexible. Finally, however, a “golden rule” analysis of the Charter would reveal a much wider scope,
expanding the word of the law in the direction of current applicability and relevance, rather than its
original intention. With the “golden rule” approach, the Charter is most applicable to current legal
contexts.
There is a philosophical basis for this rule as well – the Deconstructivist School of literary
analysis, as expounded by Derrida and Barthes. The School posits that, once the story emerges,
proper analysis requires but a cursory glance at the author, whose intentions become one of many
readings of the text19. In application to Magna Carta, the intention of King John I and the barons
becomes less relevant, as do the intentions of King Henry III, King Edward I and the English and
Australian Parliaments who repealed or extended the jurisdiction of the legislation. According to
this school, if the original purposes of Magna Carta were forgotten, it is relatively unimportant, since
contemporary readings of the Charter are as valid, if not more so than the intentions of the old Kings
of England.
This seems to be the attitude of the Tudors disregarded the intentions of the Charter’s
writers, “reinvent[ing Magna Carta] as [a] guarantor of ... basic rights.”20
The original purpose of Magna Carta is complex and somewhat diluted by its multiple iterations. As
such, there is no doubt that its purpose has been forgotten, and replaced by contemporary
interpretations. Considering the success of the Tudors, and taking heed of deconstructivist
philosophy and modern rules of legislative interpretation, that the original purpose of the law is
forgotten seems less relevant, and that it is dynamically interpreted should be lauded.
The Real Importance ... A Symbol
Considering that the Charter is now isolated from its original purpose, there remains the question:
from whence does its pervasive influence originate? There are two possible solutions, its legal
power and its symbolic influence, and both must be analysed in order to ascertain its “real
importance.”
Regarding present day legal weight, Magna Carta requires assessment on two counts: applicability in
the United Kingdom and in her former colonies.
19
“Once an act is recounted [it becomes] external to any function but the very existence of the symbol ... the
author enters his own death, writing begins”: Roland Barthes, 'The Death of the Author' (1968) 5-6 Aspen item
3, essay 1, [3].
20
Geoffrey Robertson, Crimes Against Humanity (3rd ed, 1999) 3.
5/11
70115 – Perspectives on law: Assignment 1 (Option 2)
Johanan Ottensooser: 10873305 – George Tian
In the United Kingdom, 1863 statute revisions repealed most of Magna Carta21, with
subsequent revisions22 repealing almost all clauses of the 1297 Charter, leaving only clause 123, 924
and 2925 (although each has been replaced by subsequent legislation)26. In Australia, however,
Magna Carta is still actively in force, passed on in 182827, confirmed in 186528 and overtly relegislated in NSW in 196929. Magna Carta, in Australia, is an active law. In Prisoners A-XX Inclusive v
State of New South Wales, Sheller JA states that “25 Edw I Chapter 2930 ... [is] in force in New South
Wales” 31although, Sheller JA does imply that Magna Carta is to be taken as a statement of the
principles of common law, rather than as a regular law.
Legal longevity has, however, recently been discounted as a measure of importance in legal
literature, with judges claiming “archaic” laws should no longer be in place32 and legal literature
stating asserting the primacy of flexibility over strict adherence to ancient laws who’s meaning is
lost: “sometimes the rules that make the least sense last the longest”33. Even considering Magna
Carta’s relative legal impotence, there is no doubt, that it is still central to the common law system,
even if only as a historical anchor for the common law34. Furthermore, even allowing for the total
rejection of consideration of original purpose, there has been definite and current analysis of the
original legislation and its historic, and changing, interpretation.
21
With the Statute Law Revision Act 1863 (England). In 1872 in Ireland, with Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act
1872.
22
Including, amongst others: Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act 1879 (England); Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969
(England).
23
“that the English church shall be free, and have its rights undiminished”: Michael Evans, Sources of English
Legal and Constitutional History (1st ed, 1984) 51.
24
“the city of London is to have all its ancient liberties and free customs”: Ibid. 52.
25
“No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his freehold, liberties or free customs, outlawed or
exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or
by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice”: Ibid. 54.
26
Such as The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (England).
27
In The Australian Courts Act 1828 (Imperial) 9 George IV Chapter 83.
28
In the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (UK).
29
Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 (NSW) Schedule 2.
30
Magna Carta as we know it.
31
Prisoners A-XX Inclusive v State of New South Wales (1995) 38 NSWLR 622, 634.
32
Toohey J states that there remains “difficulty” in interpreting older statutes (“finding in that language the
principles ... the appellant contends”): Ibid. 635.
33
Lexington, 'The idiocy of protectionism' (2009) The Economist
<http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2009/09/the_idiocy_of_protectionism.cfm> at 22/09/2009.
34
As in the following articles, where, even after Magna Carta was repealed in the UK, it still held political
weight: Nick Cohen, 'Who killed Magna Carta?' (2000) The New Statesman Essay - The tyranny of the brands
NewStatesman <http://www.newstatesman.com/200001240010> at 15/09/2009; Richard Corey, 'The day
Magna Carta died' (2006) A Tangled Web
<http://atangledweb.typepad.com/weblog/2006/09/the_day_magna_c.html> at 15/09/09.
6/11
70115 – Perspectives on law: Assignment 1 (Option 2)
Johanan Ottensooser: 10873305 – George Tian
This essay has ascertained that the Charter is still somewhat legally significant; however, its legal
weight must be balanced against its domination as a symbol of the common law. Here, one must
compare the alleged achievements and actual effects of the Charter, as well as the power of the
symbolic but non-legally based assertions on the functionality of Magna Carta. The four pervasive
myths associated with Magna Carta: a guarantee of trial by jury, the creation of parliament in
England, the requirement of parliamentary consent for taxes and a means to overrule the absolute
power of the King. These myths create a powerful, but legally fractured, symbol of the power of the
people over the state.
The first myth stems from an interpretation of clause 2935, whereby “no free man shall be ...
imprisoned ... except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”36 However,
there is a flaw in this analysis: where the clause seems to require “lawful judgement of his peers,” it
allows an alternative, “by the law of the land.” At this time, the King was the law of the land37,
rendering the entirety of the clause legally powerless. However, this clause did provide and
alternate benefit, a free writ whereby any prisoner (or victim of punishment) could question the
legality of his imprisonment via his right to habeas corpus. Whilst the right to “lawful judgement of
his peers” cleared the way for a jury based legal system, it was only with King Henry II38 and the
Fourth Lateran Council39 that juries became commonplace.
The second and third myths are more complex. Whereby there are brief references to
councils in clauses 6140 and 1441, the first was not reissued in 1297 and the second only hinted at the
emergence of parliament. Maitland argues that Magna Carta was the first legal text to with “what
may be called a distinct definition of [parliament]”42, which was essential to its future legal and
35
of the 1297 Charter: C 29 of the 1215 Magna Carta
Confirmatio Cartarum 1297 (England) 25 Edw I. C 29. As in Michael Evans, Sources of English Legal and
Constitutional History (1st ed, 1984) 54.
37
“the King was the state”: Geoffrey Robertson, Crimes Against Humanity (3rd ed, 1999) 3.
38
“the originator of the jury as a regular judicial instrument, first in Normandy and later in England. It was
only after Henry came to the English Throne that what had been a royal monopoly became a part of the
common law”: Ralph V. Turner, 'The Origins of the Medieval English Jury: Frankish, English, or Scandinavian?'
(May, 1968) 7(2) The Journal of British Studies 1-10, 1.
39
Cannon 18 of the fourth Lateran Council forbade all clergy from participating in ordeals, opening the door
for jury-based systems and non-religious trials, “Neither shall anyone in judicial tests or ordeals by hot or cold
water or hot iron bestow any blessing; the earlier prohibitions … remain in force”: Twelfth Ecumenical Council:
Lateran IV, 'The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council' (1215)
<http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html> at 19/08/2009.
40
“those twenty-five barons,”: Michael Evans, Sources of English Legal and Constitutional History (1st ed,
1984) 59.
41
“Clause 14 stated how the general consent of the kingdom to new taxation was to be obtained, in a process
which sounds somewhat like the process of summoning a parliament”: John Bryson J, 'Law and Politics of
Magna Carta' (2004) Plantagenet Society of Australia [38]
<http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_bryson180904> at 19/09/2009.
42
F.W. Maitland, The Constitutional History of England (1st ed, 1888) 64.
36
7/11
70115 – Perspectives on law: Assignment 1 (Option 2)
Johanan Ottensooser: 10873305 – George Tian
political weight. However, Maitland then redresses the statement, stating, “During the period which
ends with the charter we have little evidence as to the constitution of the national assembly.”43
Whereas the legal significance of this is minimal, the symbolism expounded upon by the Tudor Kings
and the early parliaments allowed these almost incidental turns of phrase to flower into the modern
parliamentary system, and the requirement for parliamentary to approve taxes44 - profound symbols
of the power of the people.
The fourth myth is perhaps the most significant in creating the well-established symbol of
Magna Carta as empowering the people over the state. This myth was also technically true, when it
comes to the 1215 iteration of the Charter. Clause 61 provides that, for the first time in English legal
history, the King must swear an oath of fealty to his people (as represented by the baronial council)
whom had enforceable veto power over him45. This was however, repealed and not reissued. This
did not destroy the idea of legal revolt, however: with Harry Evans stating in a speech to the Senate
that the legal significance of the Charter was irrelevant as compared to its symbolic domination. He
identifies all of the myths of Magna Carta as coming together: “the myth of Magna Carta [is]
reflected [in] the relative successes of the English revolutions.46”
Finally, it is interesting to note the way in which the Charter has entered the collective
subconscious of society. This is explored in The Trial47whereby Kafka dances around a dystopic
legal system devoid of the central rights associated (in myth) to Magna Carta. The system does
not guarantee habeas corpus, with the protagonist, K, imprisoned without the ability to ascertain
the reason for this. His peers do not try him; the legal system is unapproachable48, closed.
Kafka’s caricature revealing, through the climactic grotesque of K’s death, that our society is
revolted by legal system that denies the basic rights symbolised in Magna Carta.
As such, even given its legal abjection, the Charter is symbolically central to both the
common law system and the international legal subconscious.
43
“the earliest writ of summons that we have is ... in 1205”: Ibid. 66.
“a forerunner, some centuries later, of parliamentary control over taxation”: John Bryson J, 'Law and Politics
of Magna Carta' (2004) Plantagenet Society of Australia [38]
<http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_bryson180904> at 19/09/2009.
45
“And if we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, have not corrected the transgression within forty
days, … Together with the community of the whole land, they [the barons] shall then distrain and distress us in
every way possible, namely by seizing castles, lands, possessions and in any other they can (saving only our
own person and those of the queen and our children), until redress has been obtain in their opinion. And
when amends have been made, they shall obey us as before”: Michael Evans, Sources of English Legal and
Constitutional History (1st ed, 1984) 59-60.
46
“Every subsequent resistance to royal power, especially those of the 17th century, was able to have history
on its side by appealing to the Great Charter”: Harry Evans, 'Bad King John and the Australian Constitution'
(1997) Occasional Lectures [40] <http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/occa_lect/flyers/171097.htm> at
19/09/2009.
47
Franza Kafka, The Trial (1st ed, 1925). The trial, whilst being fiction, still carries legal significance, being
referenced as parable by many judges: Scott Finet, 'Franz Kafka's Trial as a symbol in Judicial Opinions' (1988)
12(1) Legal Studies Forum [31] <http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/lsf/finet12.htm#53> at 16/09/2009..
48
“’and shall I be punished for not having come of my own accord?’ [...] ‘no’ [...] ‘it is not usual to bring the
powers of the Court on one’s head’”: Franza Kafka, The Trial (1st ed, 1925) 290.
44
8/11
70115 – Perspectives on law: Assignment 1 (Option 2)
Johanan Ottensooser: 10873305 – George Tian
The original purpose of the Charter has become obscure, but the Charter is still significant, both
legally and as a symbol of the power of the people. Magna Carta’s original purpose may have been
forgotten, but it is still significant, the legal and symbolic weight of the Charter balancing, allowing
for moral extension and legal enforcement when required. Furthermore, there is legal and
philosophical precedent that allows for the relative disregard of legislative context in judicial
interpretation. The Charter serves as a symbol of the power of the people, a first point of call for
human rights49 and a last check of symbolic revolt against over-powerful monarchs.
49
“it contained some felicitous phrases which ... entered the common law ... a forerunner of the European
Convention on Human Rights”: Geoffrey Robertson, Crimes Against Humanity (3rd ed, 1999) 3.
9/11
70115 – Perspectives on law: Assignment 1 (Option 2)
Johanan Ottensooser: 10873305 – George Tian
Bibliography
Articles – Books – Reports
Australian Law Postgraduate Network, Statutory Interpretation (2009) ALPN
<http://www.alpn.edu.au/node/72> at 19/09/09.
Baker, J. H., An Introduction to English Legal History (4th ed, 2002).
Barthes, Roland, 'The Death of the Author' (1968) 5-6 Aspen item 3, essay 1.
Bryson J, John, 'Law and Politics of Magna Carta' (2004) Plantagenet Society of Australia
<http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_bryson180904> at
19/09/2009.
Butt, Peter BA LLM(Hons)(Syd) et.al. (eds), 'Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary' (2004).
Calvert, Peter, Revolution (1 ed, 1970).
Cohen, Nick, 'Who killed Magna Carta?' (2000) The New Statesman Essay - The tyranny of the brands
NewStatesman <http://www.newstatesman.com/200001240010> at 15/09/2009.
Corey, Richard, 'The day Magna Carta died' (2006) A Tangled Web
<http://atangledweb.typepad.com/weblog/2006/09/the_day_magna_c.html> at 15/09/09.
Evans, Harry, 'Bad King John and the Australian Constitution' (1997) Occasional Lectures
<http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/occa_lect/flyers/171097.htm> at 19/09/2009.
Evans, Michael, Sources of English Legal and Constitutional History (1st ed, 1984).
Finet, Scott, 'Franz Kafka's Trial as a symbol in Judicial Opinions' (1988) 12(1) Legal Studies Forum
<http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/lsf/finet12.htm#53> at 16/09/2009.
History of Law, Magna Carta history A.D. 1215 (2004) <http://www.historyoflaw.info/magna-cartahistory-a.d.-1215.html> at 15 September 2009.
Kafka, Franza, The Trial (1st ed, 1925).
Lexington, 'The idiocy of protectionism' (2009) The Economist
<http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2009/09/the_idiocy_of_protectionism.cfm> at
22/09/2009.
Lyons, Bryce, 'XXII Magna Carta and the Defeat of Angevin Absolutism', A Constitutional and Legal
History of Medieval England (2nd ed, 1980) 310-315, 317-319, 321.
Maitland, F.W., The Constitutional History of England (1st ed, 1888).
Robertson, Geoffrey, Crimes Against Humanity (3rd ed, 1999).
10/11
70115 – Perspectives on law: Assignment 1 (Option 2)
Johanan Ottensooser: 10873305 – George Tian
Wordnet, 'Distraint' (2009) Princeton Wordnet
<http://www.google.com.au/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enAU344AU344&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF8&q=define:+Distraint> at 18/09/09.
IV, Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran, 'The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council' (1215)
<http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html> at 19/08/2009.
Turner, Ralph V., 'The Origins of the Medieval English Jury: Frankish, English, or Scandinavian?' (May,
1968) 7(2) The Journal of British Studies 1-10.
Cases
Prisoners A-XX Inclusive v State of New South Wales (1995) 38 NSWLR 622.
Statutes
The Australian Courts Act 1828 (Imperial) 9 George IV Chapter 83.
The Charter of Liberties 1101 (England) 1-2 Hen I.
Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act 1879 (England).
Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (UK).
Confirmatio Cartarum 1297 (England) 25 Edw I.
The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (England).
Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 (NSW).
Magna Carta 1215 (England) 16 Jon I.
Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872.
Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969 (England).
Statute Law Revision Act 1863 (England).
11/11
70115 – Perspectives on law: Assignment 1 (Option 2)
Johanan Ottensooser: 10873305 – George Tian