Love v The Commonwealth

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAKIEFEL CJ,BELL, GAGELER, KEANE, NETTLE, GORDON AND EDELMAN JJMatter No B43/2018DANIEL ALEXANDER LOVE  PLAINTIFFANDCOMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA  DEFENDANTMatter No B64/2018BRENDAN CRAIG THOMS  PLAINTIFFANDCOMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA  DEFENDANTLove v Commonwealth of AustraliaThoms v Commonwealth of Australia[2020] HCA 3Date of Hearing: 8 May 2019 & 5 December 2019Date of Judgment: 11 February 2020B43/2018 & B64/2018ORDERMatter No B43/2018The questions stated in the special case for the opinion of the Full Court are answered as follows:1.Is the plaintiff an "alien" within the meaning of s 51(xix) of the Constitution?Answer:  The majority considers that Aboriginal Australians (understood according to the tripartite test in Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 70) are not within the reach of the "aliens" power conferred by s 51(xix) of the Constitution. The majority is unable, however, to agree as to whether the plaintiff is an Aboriginal Australian on the facts stated in the special case and, therefore, is unable to answer this question.2.Who should pay the costs of this special case?Answer:The defendant.Matter No B64/2018The questions stated in the special case for the opinion of the Full Court are answered as follows:1.Is the plaintiff an "alien" within the meaning of s 51(xix) of the Constitution?Answer:  Aboriginal Australians (understood according to the tripartite test in Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 70) are not within the reach of the "aliens" power conferred by s 51(xix) of the Constitution. The plaintiff is an Aboriginal Australian and, therefore, the answer is "No".2.Who should pay the...