R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry
| R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry | |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | The King v Burgess; Ex parte Henry |
| Decided | 10 November 1936 |
| Citations | [1936] HCA 52, (1936) 55 CLR 608 |
| Case history | |
| Related actions | R v Poole; Ex parte Henry (1939) 61 CLR 634 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Latham CJ, Starke, Dixon, Evatt & McTiernan JJ |
| Case opinions | |
| (5:0) The Commonwealth government's power to regulate interstate trade and commerce does not extend to intrastate trade and commerce. (per Latham CJ, Starke, Dixon, Evatt & McTiernan JJ) (3:2) The implementation of an international treaty is valid where the treaty is bona fide and the subject matter is of international concern. (per Latham CJ, Dixon, Evatt & McTiernan JJ; Starke J dissenting) | |
R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry is a 1936 High Court of Australia case where the majority took a broad view of the external affairs power in the Constitution but held that the interstate trade and commerce power delineated trade and commerce within a state, rejecting an argument that the power extended to activities that were commingled with interstate activities. The court set aside the conviction of daredevil pilot Goya Henry for breach of the regulations as they went further than was necessary to carry out and give effect to the convention.