Dead DOGs? : towards a less restrictive interpretation of the establishment clause : Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council (No 2)

Luke Beck

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    Cases involving the 'establishment clause' of s116 of the Australian Constitution very rarely come before the courts. In Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council (No 2) the plaintiff contended that Commonwealth funding of an Islamic school with an on-campus mosque breached the prohibition in s116 of the Constitution that '[t]he Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion'. This case note examines that case and discusses three key issues arising from the reasoning: the rejection of giving restrictive meanings to s116, the possibility of non-national establishments of religion and the possibility of multiple establishments of religion. Finally, the case note identifies a number of issues important to the task of reinterpreting the establishment clause.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)59-73
    Number of pages15
    JournalUniversity of Western Australia Law Review
    Volume37
    Issue number2
    Publication statusPublished - 2014

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Dead DOGs? : towards a less restrictive interpretation of the establishment clause : Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council (No 2)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this