Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||The relationship between the Crown and the armed forces in Australia||Contributor(s):||Moore, Cameron (author)||Publication Date:||2007||Handle Link:||https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/13251||Abstract:||Charles Clode wrote the following words on the relationship between the Crown and the armed forces in Military Forces of the Crown: Their Administration and Government in 1869: In the first place, he is bound to obey and to give his personal service to the Crown under the punishments imposed upon him for disobedience by the Mutiny Act and Articles of War. No other obligation must be put in competition with this; neither parental authority nor religious scruples, nor personal safety, nor pecuniary advantages from other service. All the duties of his life are, according to the theory of Military obedience, absorbed in that one duty of obeying the command of the Officers set over him. Callinan J cited this passage with approval in X v Commonwealth in 1999. The High Court has consistently affirmed a view of the relationship between the Crown and members of the armed forces in Australia which is unique and Victorian. It appears in cases from Marks v Cth (1964) to Coutts v Cth (1985), X v Cth (1999) and Jarratt v Comm of Police for NSW (2005). Despite some dissent and caution as to the use of nineteenth century military texts, nonetheless the High Court has relied heavily on historical material and perceptions. Given this emphasis on history, this paper will examine the historical antecedents of the relationship between the Crown and the armed forces to which the High Court refers. It will consider the extent to which the legal principles governing that relationship were subject to change over time or in fact remained relatively unmodified. In doing so, this paper will consider the extent of divergence, if any, in the relationship of the Crown with British and Australian armed forces. In this way, the paper seeks to illuminate a connection between law and history, and see whether the relationship between the Crown and the armed forces is a fenceline through the past.||Publication Type:||Conference Publication||Conference Name:||26th Annual Australian and New Zealand Law and History Society Conference: Fenceposts in Legal History, Armidale, Australia, 21st - 23rd September, 2007||Conference Details:||26th Annual Australian and New Zealand Law and History Society Conference: Fenceposts in Legal History, Armidale, Australia, 21st - 23rd September, 2007||Source of Publication:||Australia and New Zealand Law & History E-Journal: 2007 Abstracts||Publisher:||Australian and New Zealand Law History Society||Place of Publication:||New Zealand||ISSN:||1177-3170||Field of Research (FOR):||180108 Constitutional Law||Socio-Economic Outcome Codes:||810103 Command, Control and Communications
810199 Defence not elsewhere classified
|HERDC Category Description:||E3 Extract of Scholarly Conference Publication||Other Links:||http://www.anzlhsejournal.auckland.ac.nz/abstracts_2007/abstract24.html||Series Name:||Australia and New Zealand Law & History E-Journal||Series Number :||2007||Statistics to Oct 2018:||Visitors: 59
|Appears in Collections:||Conference Publication|
Files in This Item:
checked on May 3, 2019
Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.