R v Phillips

For the reasons I have given, I hold that the State law in force in the place on which the Pearce Royal Australian Air Force base now stands was not affected by the acquisition of that place by the Commonwealth. No Commonwealth law inconsistent with s. 184 of the Criminal Code WA had been passed prior to 11th March 1970 and it follows that s. 184 was in force at Pearce on that date.

The question whether the District Court of Western Australia has jurisdiction to try the accused for the offence alleged is one of less difficulty. It is true that the District Court of Western Australia Act, 1969 WA was passed after the place was acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes. If that Act dealt with a matter within the power given to the Commonwealth by s. 52 (i.) it would therefore not operate in relation to the place so acquired. However, what the statute does is to set up a State Court which is invested with State jurisdiction. That is not a matter within any power of the Commonwealth. It is, of course, true that the Commonwealth Parliament could set up a federal court for the purpose of trying persons alleged to have committed offences against laws of the Commonwealth in places acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes or it could invest State Courts with federal jurisdiction to try such alleged offenders. Whether the Commonwealth laws simply applied State laws, or legislated directly for the places, the jurisdiction exercised by the federal court in trying offenders against the Commonwealth laws would be federal jurisdiction. In the present case the accused is alleged to have committed in a place within the State an offence against the law of the State. The State had power to pass a law creating a court with jurisdiction to try such an offence notwithstanding that it was allegedly committed in a place acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes.