About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

20 Australian Mining & Petroleum L.J. 308 (2001)
The Croker Island Appeals to the High Court - Commonwealth of Australia v. Mary Yarmirr; Mary Yarmirr v. Northern Territory of Australia

handle is hein.journals/ausreen20 and id is 308 raw text is: CASE NOTES THE CROKER ISLAND APPEALS TO THE HIGH COURT COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA V MARY YARMIRR; MARY YARMIRR V NORTHERN TERRITORY OF A USTRALIA' Native title extends off shore - exclusive rights - operations of a commercial character Pat Brazil* The High Court confirmed the decisions under appeal (these were commented on in (2000) 19 AMPLJ 13), which held that native title where established can extend into the sea area but that it did not include exclusive rights or operations of a commercial character. Mary Yarmirr in whose name the litigation was brought has described the outcome as a shallow victory. The claim was for exclusive native title rights over 3,300 sq km surrounding Croker Island off the Coburg Peninsula north-east of Darwin. If successful it would have allowed Aboriginals to control fishing, mining and tourism offshore. DETERMINATION MADE BY PRIMARY JUDGE (OLNEY J) UPHELD A striking feature of this litigation saga is that the original determination made by the primary Judge, Olney J, on the complex and important issues involved has been upheld by the Full Court of the Federal Court and by the High Court without any change at all. He determined that native title existed in relation to the area in question, that the sea-bed in relation to which native title existed ended at the mean low water mark, and that the seas in relation to which those rights exist are the waters above that sea-bed and the waters above the inter-tidal zone adjacent to that sea-bed (being an area ending at the mean high water mark). It was also determined that the native title rights and interests do not confer possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the sea and sea- bed within the claimed area to the exclusion of all others. The determination further provided that the native title rights and interests considered to be of importance were the rights and interests of the common law holders in accordance with and subject to their traditional laws and customs to- (a) fish, hunt and gather within the claimed area within the purpose of satisfying their personal domestic or non commercial communal needs, including for the purpose of observing traditional, cultural, ritual and spiritual laws and customs; * Special Counsel, Phillips Fox. 1 High Court of Australia, Full Court, II October 2001.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most