Deakin University
Browse

File(s) under permanent embargo

How Does the High Court Interpret the Constitution?: A Qualitative Analysis Between 2019-2021

Version 2 2024-04-19, 05:43
Version 1 2023-06-22, 05:18
journal contribution
posted on 2024-04-19, 05:43 authored by David TanDavid Tan, Tamsin PaigeTamsin Paige, Despina Hrambanis, Joseph Green
Theorists of legal interpretation often argue that their theory describes or fits well with legal practice without using empirical evidence to support such claims. In this article, we provide a proof of concept for how such claims can be established using Critical Discourse Analysis – a qualitative method of coding texts – as applied to High Court decisions. Particularly, we assess whether a slightly modified version of Philip Bobbitt’s theory of constitutional modalities can be used to describe Australian constitutional interpretation working backwards from the start date of the project in August 2021. We find that Bobbitt’s modalities were used by High Court judges in the period studied. Predominantly, the High Court used the doctrinal modality supplemented strongly by textual and structural modalities. The ubiquitous use of doctrine to interpret the Australian Constitution in the period studied suggests a need for a greater understanding of doctrine as an interpretive modality.

History

Journal

University of New South Wales Law Journal

Volume

47

Pagination

177-210

Location

Sydney, N.S.W.

ISSN

0313-0096

eISSN

1839-2881

Language

eng

Publication classification

C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal

Issue

1

Publisher

Law School, University of New South Wales

Usage metrics

    Research Publications

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC