What initiated the case? What were their roles. Provide background information about them.Eddie Mabo was born, Eddie Koiki Sambo, June 29th 1936 on Murray Island in the Torres Strait. While growing up Eddie learnt and was taught about the land ownership structures of his people, as well as the traditions. Mabo was accused of being drunk and of having a relationship with a young woman. Mabo was then banished for 12 months by the Island Council, and was set to work as a diver on a pearling boat and as a deckhand. It is at this time, while working in the pearling harbor, that Mabo comes to realise that the Indigenous people were not given the same equal rights as the 'white' Australians.
Mabo came to realise that his people also didn't legally own their land, during a discussion with a friend named Henry Reynolds, who was a leading historian. A convention was then held at James Cook University, bringing together many academics and lawyers from all around Australia, to discuss the Indigenous Land Rights. an address was delivered by Mabo which he outlines the the traditional land ownership and inheritance system continue on Murray Island. Eddie Mabo took the role of Lead Plaintiff, Greg Mcintyre took the role of Solicitor and Bryan Keon-Cohen took on the role of Junior Counsel. |
What was the event or right violation that led to legal action being taken?*ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS WERE NOT RECOGNISED*
The rights being violated were: Captain James Cook claimed all of the East Coast, which is now distinguished as Australia, as British territory under the principle 'terra nullius' although it was believed to be inhabited still. The British got away with this due to the fact that the Indigenous people did not have any legal title over the land as they had no written laws of land tenure of the type that existed in the European countries. |
Explain the facts and issues that were central to this case.
The facts and issues that were central to this case were:
- Aboriginal land rights were not recognised- meaning that the British people did not recognise the Indigenous to have any legal title over their land as there were no written laws of land tenure. Even though the land was inhabited, Captain Cook still claimed it under the principle 'terra nullius', meaning land belonging to no-one.
- Indigenous people and their relationship to the land- meaning that the Aboriginal people had their own system of land ownership and usage, which developed over time, tens of thousands of years to be accurate.
- Land rights and land ownership- in recent years Indigenous groups have sought to regain some of those rights through 'Dispossession' and 'Early land rights campaign.
Were there any conflicting views in this case?
Outline and compare the differing views and arguments
presented.
The different types of conflicting views were:
- The status of Indigenous people- white settlement removed most basic human rights from indigenous Australians and tightly controlled all aspects of their lives.
- Economic growth and development of resources-how the land might be used and, of course, by whom, to remove economic benefit.
- Queensland government attitudes- the Queensland government set out to obstruct Indigenous land rights and the claims of the Murray Islanders in particular but was ultimately unsuccessful.
Outline the court case and the decision.
THE CASE: The Mabo case removed the legal fiction of terra nullius from
Australian law, allowing for the concept of native title to be applied in relation to
Indigenous land rights claims. The High Court could only decide on the actual facts
before it, but it's decision created legal precedent that might be applied in future cases
that may be similar.As the decision left many unanswered questions in relation to land tenure,
legislation was necessary to clarify the legal position of both Indigenous and
non-indigenous occupants.
THE DECISION: The Full Bench of the High Court decided in favour of the Islander
Plaintiffs and declared that: 'The Murray Islanders of the Torres Strait are entitled, as
against the whole world, ton possession, occupation and enjoyment of the lands of
the Murray Islands'
Australian law, allowing for the concept of native title to be applied in relation to
Indigenous land rights claims. The High Court could only decide on the actual facts
before it, but it's decision created legal precedent that might be applied in future cases
that may be similar.As the decision left many unanswered questions in relation to land tenure,
legislation was necessary to clarify the legal position of both Indigenous and
non-indigenous occupants.
THE DECISION: The Full Bench of the High Court decided in favour of the Islander
Plaintiffs and declared that: 'The Murray Islanders of the Torres Strait are entitled, as
against the whole world, ton possession, occupation and enjoyment of the lands of
the Murray Islands'
Explain the laws that applied to this case
The three key areas of law that were relevant to the Mabo Case were:
- Australian property law, relating to the different types of ownership and tenure of land- Colonial governments in Australia granted or sold land to white settlers, who then gained a legal freehold title to the land.
- Land rights legislation that had been passed by Commonwealth, state and territory parliaments- The Land rights Act of 1976 introduced a new form of land title that allowed Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to claim their traditional lands.
- The common law principles of native title- native title is a legal recognition, under common law, of traditional indigenous land occupation and custom in countries where British colonisation has existed.
What was the impact of the decision in this case on the rights of individuals and on the legal system? In what ways did the decision empower those whose rights were redressed by the decision?
*THE MABO DECISION EMPOWERS INDIGENOUS GROUPS TO CLAIM NATIVE TITLE.
Indigenous groups set out to put native title claims before the courts following the Mabo decision. This however caused a great amount of uncertainty, especially in the rural areas where mining and pastoral leases on Crown land were seen to be vulnerable to native title claims. Supporters of Indigenous land rights wanted to see the opening up of more land traditional owners, while supporters of pastoral and mining interests wanted restrictions on when native title might apply. it was clear that legislation was necessary to clarify the law in relation to native title.
Indigenous groups set out to put native title claims before the courts following the Mabo decision. This however caused a great amount of uncertainty, especially in the rural areas where mining and pastoral leases on Crown land were seen to be vulnerable to native title claims. Supporters of Indigenous land rights wanted to see the opening up of more land traditional owners, while supporters of pastoral and mining interests wanted restrictions on when native title might apply. it was clear that legislation was necessary to clarify the law in relation to native title.