Foreword |
|
vii | |
Editors' Foreword |
|
ix | |
Acknowledgements |
|
xi | |
|
|
xvii | |
|
|
xxv | |
|
|
1 | (20) |
|
I Proportionality and Facts |
|
|
2 | (5) |
|
A What is Proportionality? |
|
|
2 | (2) |
|
B Proportionality in Australia |
|
|
4 | (2) |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
II The Aim and Scope of this Book |
|
|
7 | (2) |
|
III Methodology and Comparative Context |
|
|
9 | (10) |
|
|
10 | (2) |
|
B The Australian Constitutional Framework |
|
|
12 | (2) |
|
C The Comparative Context |
|
|
14 | (5) |
|
IV The Structure of the Book |
|
|
19 | (2) |
|
2 The Fact-Dependent Nature of Proportionality |
|
|
21 | (19) |
|
I Proportionality: A Structured Approach |
|
|
21 | (7) |
|
|
23 | (1) |
|
|
23 | (2) |
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
|
26 | (2) |
|
II The Nature of Proportionality Reasoning |
|
|
28 | (10) |
|
A Types of Decisions Involved in Assessing Proportionality |
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
B Factual Elements in Proportionality |
|
|
31 | (7) |
|
III Conclusion: Proportionality and Facts |
|
|
38 | (2) |
|
|
40 | (23) |
|
|
41 | (2) |
|
|
43 | (14) |
|
A Kenneth Culp Davis and the Distinction between Adjudicative Facts and Legislative Facts |
|
|
45 | (5) |
|
B `Legislative Facts' and their Alternatives |
|
|
50 | (4) |
|
C Evaluating the Categories |
|
|
54 | (3) |
|
III Facts and Proportionality |
|
|
57 | (4) |
|
A The Suitability Stage: Purpose and Rational Connection |
|
|
58 | (1) |
|
B The Necessity Stage: Predictions and Counterfactuals |
|
|
59 | (1) |
|
|
60 | (1) |
|
|
61 | (2) |
|
4 Proportionality and Facts in Comparative Perspective |
|
|
63 | (25) |
|
I Proportionality Compared |
|
|
63 | (4) |
|
|
67 | (13) |
|
|
67 | (4) |
|
B Differentiating Facts: The Various Stages of Proportionality Analysis |
|
|
71 | (9) |
|
|
80 | (7) |
|
|
80 | (4) |
|
B Deference to the Legislature |
|
|
84 | (3) |
|
|
87 | (1) |
|
5 Proportionality in Australian Constitutional Law |
|
|
88 | (26) |
|
I The Australian Adoption of Proportionality |
|
|
89 | (3) |
|
II The Development of Proportionality |
|
|
92 | (15) |
|
A The Development of Different Tests |
|
|
92 | (8) |
|
B `Appropriate and Adapted' versus `Proportionality'? |
|
|
100 | (3) |
|
C McCloy and the Advent of Structured Proportionality |
|
|
103 | (4) |
|
III Evaluating Proportionality |
|
|
107 | (5) |
|
|
109 | (2) |
|
|
111 | (1) |
|
|
112 | (2) |
|
6 The Factual Basis of Proportionality in Australia |
|
|
114 | (30) |
|
|
114 | (3) |
|
II Facts and the Framing of Constitutional Tests |
|
|
117 | (22) |
|
A Reasonably Capable of Being Considered Appropriate and Adapted |
|
|
117 | (5) |
|
B Reasonably Appropriate and Adapted |
|
|
122 | (7) |
|
|
129 | (3) |
|
D Structured Proportionality |
|
|
132 | (7) |
|
III The Correlation between Proportionality and Facts? |
|
|
139 | (4) |
|
|
143 | (1) |
|
7 Procedural Implications |
|
|
144 | (24) |
|
I The High Court's Existing Approach: Limitations and Unresolved Issues |
|
|
144 | (11) |
|
A High Court Procedures and their Limitations |
|
|
144 | (3) |
|
|
147 | (8) |
|
II Recognising Facts: Implications for Procedure |
|
|
155 | (10) |
|
|
156 | (4) |
|
B The Necessity and Balancing Stages |
|
|
160 | (5) |
|
III Changing Facts and the Problem of Precedent |
|
|
165 | (2) |
|
|
167 | (1) |
|
8 Conclusion: Why Facts Matter |
|
|
168 | (107) |
Bibliography |
|
275 | (14) |
Index |
|
189 | |