← All Authorities
Australia Leading Case separation of powersconstitutional

Rizeq v Western Australia

(2017) 262 CLR 1
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Year2017
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A state may prosecute Commonwealth offences, but the state court exercises federal jurisdiction when applying Commonwealth criminal law, not state jurisdiction.

Key Principle

The HCA held that a state may prosecute Commonwealth offences committed in the state, provided the state court exercises federal jurisdiction when applying Commonwealth criminal law.

Area of Law

constitutional

Related Cases

NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 97 ALJR 1005

Indefinite administrative detention of a non-citizen with no real prospect of removal is unlawful as punitive and contrary to Ch III of the Australian Constitution, overruling Al-Kateb v Godwin.

Farm Transparency International v NSW (2022) 276 CLR 81

HCA upheld NSW ag-gag laws as valid notwithstanding a burden on the implied freedom of political communication, applying the structured proportionality test.

Palmer v Western Australia (2021) 272 CLR 505

HCA upheld WA COVID-19 border closure legislation as valid under s.92, finding restrictions on interstate movement were reasonably necessary and proportionate to protect public health.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Rizeq v Western Australia and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Rizeq v Western Australia