This commentary explains the Privy Councils opinion in Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286, a case which continues to influence Australias constitutional framework. He was Lord Advocate , the most senior Law For more information, visit http://journals.cambridge.org. This law effectively stopped anyone To justify the acquisition of land in Australia, the British combined the common law notion of settlement (from Blackstone), an argument of indigenous rights to land where the indigenous people were in actual occupation, and a scale of civilisation framework borrowed from both the Lockean idea of property rights being generated from labour mixing with the soil and the Scottish moral philosophers four stages of civilisation (Hunter-gatherers, Agriculture, Mercantilism and Industrialisation). 0000002631 00000 n q\6 67. % of 10% of the land fund being devoted to Aboriginal welfare. See para 37, 203. 0000064207 00000 n endstream endobj 64 0 obj<> endobj 65 0 obj<>/Encoding<>>>>> endobj 66 0 obj<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB]>>/Type/Page>> endobj 67 0 obj<> endobj 68 0 obj<> endobj 69 0 obj<>stream Decided September 12, 1958. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. But it is doubtful whether they were organised under `chiefs competent to represent them. Cooks secret instructions had provided that he should acquire territory with the consent of the Natives. /Filter /LZWDecode Cambridge University Press is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe. /Filter /LZWDecode << As a matter of present Australian law it is clear that the Crowns acquisition of sovereignty over Australia was an act of state unchallengeable in the courts. Conspiracy Theorist /ProcSet 2 0 R cf A Frame, Colonizing Attitudes towards Maori Custom (1981) NZLJ 105; MR Litchfield, Confiscation of Maori Land (1985) 15. Aboriginal Legal Service C. W. Beckham en 1915. Il est le 35e gouverneur du Kentucky (19001907) et un snateur pour l'tat au Snat des tats-Unis. 13 0 obj The problem is how to explain how that ownership appeared to be ignored when the law was based on mere assertion and could hardly ground a reasonable justification for Crown absolute beneficial ownership of land, and when that common law was promulgated in the context of battles over the extent of the Crown prerogative in the new colony of NSW without reference to indigenous interests. 0000037337 00000 n Cooper v Stuart endobj But problems regarding its application led in 1828 to the passing of the Australian Courts Act,[38] s 24 of which provided that: all laws and statutes in force within the Realm of England at the time of passing of this Act shall be applied in the administration of justice in the Courts of New South Wales and Van Diemens Land respectively, so far as the same can be applied within the said colonies . However it is desirable to deal with the issue at the general level at which it is raised. WebCooper v Stuart was the Privy Council determination which cemented terra nullius in Australia for the century up to Mabo. The Distinction Between Settled and Conquered Colonies. William G. Cooper, et al., Members of the [54] But such a presumption is hardly needed. 0000033715 00000 n Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation The case was about the reception of English law into the new colony and only en passant does it address the issue of indigenous rights to land. This is particularly the case with respect to the recognition of Aboriginal laws and traditions, which are now in many respects different from those the European settlers saw, but only dimly comprehended. European colonists could not acquire land from indigenous peoples, only the Crown could effect that; Discovery gave title to the Crown, subject only to the fact that the indigenous inhabitants were admitted to possess a present right of occupancy, or use in the soil, which was subordinate to the ultimate dominion of the discoverer. As Chief Justice Marshall had noted, [i]t has never been doubted, that either the United States, or the several States, had a clear title to all the lands within the boundary lines described in the treaty [with Great Britain after independence was won], subject only to the Indian right of occupancy, and that the exclusive power to extinguish that right was vested in that government. It asserts that treaty-making between the Commonwealth, the States and indigenous Australians has a legal justification. See eg the discussion of initial European contact in Cape York in R Logan Jack, See I Hookey, Settlement and Sovereignty in P Hanks and B Keon-Cohen (eds). J. C. W. Beckham 0000061065 00000 n [35] According to Castles, each of the steps taken by Cook demonstrated that he was following those parts of his instructions which assumed that Australia was to be treated as uninhabited. He attended and graduated from Brown University Program In Medicine in 1978, having over 45 years of diverse experience, especially in Neurology. As part of an imagined Makarrata Commission, a Research Partnership is established to support future truth-telling. The Court held that the Crown could not establish that legal relationship sufficient to overturn the mans honest claim of right to take the crocodile by exercising his native title right to hunt the crocodile. Online Library of Liberty Whether Aboriginal groups could be said to have constituted nations (they were, of course, not a single nation), to have had sovereignty, or to have had a political organisation outside family organisation, has been the subject of considerable debate. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. Dr. William Cooper 0000004467 00000 n Securing Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Rights, Aboriginal Participation in Resource Management, Administrative and Political Constraints of the Federal System, The Framework of Religious Exemptions in Anti-discrimination Legislation, Australias Corporate Criminal Responsibility Regime. 552 Director : Stuart Heisler Media Format : NTSC, Subtitled Run time : 1 hour and 30 minutes Release date : February 6, 2018 Actors : Gary Cooper, Loretta Young, William Demarest, Dan Duryea Subtitles: : English Studio : Classicflix ASIN : B076DR791M Number of discs : 1 xref Despite He examined Chief Justice Marshalls famous American judgments on the subject, Storeys Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Kents Commentaries on American Law and various Colonial Office documents relating to an attempt by William Wentworth to purchase land from Maori people directly and without the involvement of the Crown.1 The 9 July proceedings centred on the Claims to Grants of Land in New Zealand Bill, which was designed to render null and void Wentworth and others purported purchase of Maori land. Cooper. %PDF-1.4 % Peter O'Grady trading as Legal Helpdesk Lawyers ABN 93 775 540 127 | Shop K2, Bridgepoint Shopping Centre, 1-3 Brady Street, Mosman NSW 2088 As the Privy Council pointed out in passing in Cooper v Stuart, New South Wales had been regarded as a tract of territory, practically unoccupied, without settled inhabitants or settled land, at the time when it was peacefully annexed to the British dominions. 10 0 obj The decisive date was deliberately made the date of the passing of the Act, 25 July 1828, in order to gain the benefit of Peels criminal law reforms introduced during the 1820s. Paul Coes statement of claim in Coe v the Commonwealth used the concept expressly, and it was taken up by historians such as Reynolds and others.7 Thus it is now necessary to put proposition 4: There is no reference to terra nullius being the basis for settlement in 19th century historical sources relating to the settlement of Australia. WebThe Old Privy Council decision in Cooper V Stuart [1889] was based on the factual errors that Australia was peacefully settled and that Aborigines were never in possession of the land. General Issues of Evidence and Procedure, 24. stream THE RECEPTION OF LAND LAW INTO THE AUSTRALIAN It continues to offer practitioners and academics wide topical coverage without compromising rigorous editorial standards. His Excellency Sir Thomas Brisbane, then Governor-in-Chief of New South Wales and its Dependencies, on the 27th May 1823, made a grant to one William [27] Justice Blackburn in Milirrpums case put the distinction thus: There is a distinction between settled colonies, where the land, being desert and uncultivated, is claimed by right of occupancy, and conquered or ceded colonies. There has been some excellent work published in the last few years on developing a treaty with Australian indigenous people.7 I have little to add to them suffice to say that there is little obstacle to effecting a treaty from a precedent standpoint, as New Zealand and Canada have shown from the 1980s.8 The latest of this work from Professor Megan Davis has demonstrated how grass roots indigenous people across the country want an indigenous body to advise the Commonwealth. 35. But they also empowered him to take possession of uninhabited country, by setting up Proper Marks and Inscriptions as first discoverers and possessors. 0000001680 00000 n Brennan Js decision recognised the indigenous right to occupancy of the land, sovereignty over which was acquired by the British Crown.14 The occupancy of the Aboriginal people, in the absence of any claim to sovereignty, gave them ownership as first taker. ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS A Comparative Assessment However even this is not entirely clear. (1978) 18 ALR 592 (Mason J);. 140 46 A similar distinction was made by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in its report on the feasibility of an Aboriginal treaty or Makarrata: It may be that a better and more honest appreciation of the facts relating to Aboriginal occupation at the time of settlement, and of the Eurocentric view taken by the occupying powers, could lead to the conclusion that sovereignty inhered in the Aboriginal peoples at that time. Aboriginal Customary Laws and Substantive Criminal Liability, Criminal Law Defences and Aboriginal Customary Laws, Intoxication and Diminished Responsibility, Conclusion: Intent and Criminal Law Defences, Aboriginal Customary Law as a Ground of Criminal Liability, 21. Professor Bruce Kercher, An Unruly Child, A History of Law in Australia, 1994 0000021105 00000 n It is possible that the point may be dealt with by the High Court in Mabo v Queensland and Commonwealth, although the claim there does not depend on the conquered colony argument. 0000001591 00000 n endstream endobj 141 0 obj <> endobj 142 0 obj <> endobj 143 0 obj <> endobj 144 0 obj <>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>> endobj 145 0 obj <> endobj 146 0 obj <> endobj 147 0 obj <> endobj 148 0 obj <> endobj 149 0 obj <> endobj 150 0 obj <> endobj 151 0 obj <> endobj 152 0 obj <>stream The Mabo judgment has done much to put those claims onto a more secure foundation, but as one author has put it, the radical title fiction has simply replaced the feudal fiction.1, And of course, Mabo could say nothing about the acquisition of sovereignty over Australias land mass and territorial seas. Special Protection for Aboriginal Suspects? Whatever may have been the injustice of this encroachment, there is no reason to suppose that either justice or humanity would now be consulted by receding from it.[34]. 4 0 obj WebCooper v. Stuart.3 In this judgment Lord Watson had held that Australia, as a "set-tled" colony, had received transplanted British law "except where explicitly changed or It has maintained its pre-eminence as one of the most important journals of its kind encompassing Human Rights and European Law. As Connor has pointed out, it was the Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara in 1975 which led directly to the idea of terra nullius taking hold of the historical and legal imagination in Australia. [33]id, 138. Cooper v Stuart [1889] UKPC 1 | Peter O'Grady Lawyer << Conclusions and Implementation: The Way Forward? The Settled Colony Debate | ALRC XCIC3MRM!t,k*8j7#`4 c`# 7A 0@ As a result, neither conquest, cession by treaty nor settlement establishes an uncontestable relationship to property of each State and Territory in the land those jurisdictions encompass. The Governor of the colony, before 1824, had made a land grant that was subject to a reservation that the government could reacquire, at any time, a portion of the land that might be needed for public purposes. The acknowledgment of past injustice provides no particular answer to that question. startxref The right of occupancy asserted by Gippss examination of legal commentaries looks like native title as we understand it from Mabo, and the title in the Discoverer looks like radical title. See also GS Lester, Submission 468 (19 February 1985). 0000002726 00000 n Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286 Show simple item record Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286 Files in this item This item appears in the following Collection (s) Book chapters Contains book chapters authored What underlies those proposals, and the Commissions general approach, is an acknowledgment of the present realities, and the present needs, of the Aboriginal people of Australia. The Australian High Court's Use of the - Cambridge Core Community Wardens and other Forms of Self-Policing, Policing Aboriginal Communities: Conclusions, 33. WebJ. 0000030966 00000 n Each of the cases (Attorney-General v Brown, Cooper v Stuart) in the 19th century were designed to guard the Crown against the unwarranted overreach of powerful and wealthy colonists intent on challenging the skeleton of principle underpinning English land law and the exercise of the Crowns prerogative through Governors in granting land before any representative assembly was established. 0000038209 00000 n 0000065632 00000 n See also Logan Jack (1921), and cf para 39. 0000064319 00000 n The Recognition of Traditional Marriages: General Approach, Existing Recognition of Traditional Marriages under Australian Law, Alternative Forms of Recognition of Aboriginal Traditional Marriages, Recognition of Traditional Marriages as De Facto Relationships, Enforcement of Traditional Marriage Rules, Traditional Marriage: Definition and Proof, 14. In those of the latter kind, the colony already having law of its own, that law remains in force until altered.[28]. The South Australian Colonization Commissioners followed this up with instructions to the Protector of Aborigines, narrowing the legal meaning of Aboriginal rights in land to cover only lands used for cultivation, fixed residence or funereal purposes.4 Land not actually occupied by Aboriginal people was beneficially owned by the Crown. Young Sheldon) je americk komedilny seril stanice CBS vytvoren Chuckom Lorreom a Stevenom Molarom.Seril, odohrvajci sa koncom 80. a zaiatkom 90. rokov 20. storoia, je spin-off Prequelom sitkomu Teria vekho tresku a predstavuje postavu Sheldona Coopera v jeho deviatich rokoch, ktor ije so svojou rodinou vo 0000001809 00000 n Current student }AWG5{eNw RDJ2\d"h HlUn6}WQob&[`Q2mT_DJ8\9gWZGM Spanning the centuries from Hammurabi to Hume, and collecting material on topics from art and economics to law and political theory, the OLL provides you with a rich variety of texts to explore and consider. This paper seeks briefly to survey some of the voluminous literature on these related topics. }";K{ls}EZvM<5B Mabo/Cooper V Stuart The Privy Council, in obiter, noted New South Wales was, as a tract of territory, practically unoccupied, without settled inhabitants or settled land, at the time when it was peacefully annexed to the British dominions. /hWj|]e_+-7 Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286 | 4 - Taylor & Francis Queensland 4003. On the other hand, Justice Jacobs pointed out that there was no Privy Council decision directly on the matter and that the plaintiffs should be entitled to argue the point. In passing their Lordships referred to NSW as a Colony which consisted of a tract of territory practically unoccupied, without settled inhabitants or settled law, at the time when it was peacefully annexed to the British dominions. In this sense the comment was more akin to obiter than a ratio. 81 0 obj<>stream Andrew Fitzmaurice has very usefully explained the origins of terra nullius in the Roman law idea of the first taker. Australia has always been regarded as belonging to the latter class [31]. AC3bXEJV`!!uj4Cx5SVHJ}f2DK2 Email info@alrc.gov.au, PO Box 12953 << When founded in 1952, the International and Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) was unique. 0000035325 00000 n 0000003030 00000 n %PDF-1.6 % Attorney-General v Brown must, as we shall see, be viewed in light of the battle Governor Gipps ultimately lost in exercise of the Crowns prerogative to protect the lands beyond the limits of location from the unlawful encroachment by squatters. WebIn Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286, 29 it was held that Australia was Terra Nullius at the time of annexation and defined Australia. It then surveys the debates over . pZl) ')"RuH. But nevertheless Cooper v Stuart mandates the statement of proposition 6 because in 1971 Justice Blackburn still considered himself bound by it: 291) was heavily influenced by this reversal of argument previously used to protect indigenous rights in the face of colonial acquisition of territory. TOPIC 2: HISTORY OF AUSTRALIAN LAW Flashcards | Quizlet 0000001908 00000 n This paper seeks to articulate that justification for a general legal readership. G(pKrox)mFYz.E\R|1 /L`:b2``l&A3F&>i9lg0k 'tNeNgv]ILjiuNLMCEE$tngx?:rs$N&4?{lW~Bb)+j'UOX#_f!~:Nc{LkjFei?`~24?'3%zH. biXDN>[ 57h$%42TPd0vX:{ ~4an``)Tpv%qX;V0]`pVVP1(X"y5 X} 7b Other Methods of Proof: Assessors, Court Experts, Pre-Sentence Reports, Justice Mechanisms in Aboriginal Communities: Needs, Problems and Responses, 28. Had Australia been treated as a conquered colony, Aboriginal customary laws, to the extent that they had not been expressly abrogated, would presumably have been recognised, at least in their application to Aborigines. /Length 18 0 R Several propositions derived from the literature can be baldly stated, and then examined more closely. Jonathan is regarded as one of Australias leading native title and cultural heritage lawyers and has been recognised by Chambers Asia Pacific every year since 2007 in addition to several other legal publications. The English, citing Locke, inverted it: those who mixed their labour with the soil and with things available in nature were entitled to a first claim to property rights in those things, a sort of first taker as first fashioner.4. The case, Cooper v Stuart , had nothing to do with the rights of Aboriginal people in New South Wales. Helping Injured Clients to Regain Mobility, http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/news/2017/06/symbolic-constitutional-recognition-table-after-uluru-talks-. Webis generally regarded as settled, a legal principle laid down in Cooper v Stuart7 in 1889 and followed by Blackburn J in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd in 1971. WebSouth Wales: Cooper v Stuart (1889), 14 App Cas 286, at p 291. Jonathan applies his extensive projects, resources, native title and cultural heritage experience to mining, oil and gas transactions, renewable energy, infrastructure developments, joint venture arrangements, and asset and share sales and acquisitions across Australia and internationally. F$E-:# 6 Cited in Mabo no 2 at 34-35. The Proof of Aboriginal Customary Laws, Proof of Customary Laws: The Overseas Experience, Proof of Aboriginal Customary Laws: The Australian Experience, Methods of Proving Aboriginal Customary Laws, 26. This was the case, at least initially, in New Zealand. 34. 0000020755 00000 n /Parent 5 0 R [25] It is clear that these rules were the vehicle by which recognition of Aboriginal laws was denied. Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286 Indigenous Legal Judgments: Bringing Indigenous Voices into Judicial Decision Making, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the law, Synot, E; de Silva-Wijeyeratne, R, Commentary: Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286, Indigenous Legal Judgments: Bringing Indigenous Voices into Judicial Decision Making, 2021, 1. Legal and Moral Issues. [52]Two Hundred Years Later (1983) para 3.46. Stay informed with all of the latest news from the ALRC. /Contents 12 0 R >> 1996 Cambridge University Press Parliament, and want to work more slowly towards a national treaty.9 Nevertheless, Victoria and South Australia have started consultation towards provincial treaties.10 Proposition 10 is the consequence: On this view, Mabo is only a step on the path to the establishment of that legal relationship. Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Rights: Legislation or Common Law? M@cB2Z9#69%B?&seJs9:C$E3 This proclamation articulated the legal principle of Terra Nullius, which was enshrined into Australian law by the Privy Council in the 1889 case of Cooper v Stuart. 25 See Blackstone, above WebWilliam Watson, Baron Watson, PC (25 August 1827 14 September 1899) was a Scottish lawyer and Conservative Party politician. xb```f``u2l@q ^z49nOekLP5UZl[T:>y]YNaq``r``1`Pf4(%=H@?sPD Ff}@a I9bI(xpk@y hTu,,b~g1h~y It was the only journal which offered the reader coverage of comparative law as well as public and private international law. [cited 23 Jul, 3 Letters Patent for South Australia 19 February 1836. \9d +9 yb &`h`.Fc8PJP\ cn9& a9 &lH,G#LDFCpEQ] -QApS : 8sJ1Ny]"fSo9_#eNFIE1Tq&Qz+JTZ1a1%\0x\6B6VY 2B endstream 0000034568 00000 n There was no recognition of common law native title: only a recognition of a right of occupancy fatally qualified in the southern hemisphere colonies by the word actual. The effect was of course to force an actual occupancy by the policy mechanisms just described, thus wresting Aboriginal people from their spiritual connection to country. Aboriginal Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Rights: Current Australian Legislation, Legislation on Hunting and Gathering Rights, Access to Land for Hunting and Gathering: The Present Position, Miscellaneous Restrictions Under Australian Legislation, Australian Legislation on Hunting, Fishing and Gathering: An Overview, 36. /Resources << Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286, 291. It follows that Aborigines must be considered within the allegiance of the Queen and as entitled to her protection. But unease at the insensitive disregard for the facts of Aboriginal life, and at the way in which terms such as peaceful annexation gloss over the reality of the relations between European settlers and Aboriginal groups,[45] has been a significant factor in recent suggestions that the question needs to be re-evaluated. In Attorney-General v Brown, a landowner tried to take coal from his granted land where a reservation clause in the grant provided for Crown ownership of the coal. Mabo/Cooper v Stuart These two results from the different understandings of terra nullius fought for supremacy in the 19th century. The Crown in London gave up the fight to stop leases being given to those who had simply spread out beyond the limits of location, and passed the 1846 waste lands legislation providing for leases of Crown land. But there is anachronism in this. [35]Additional Instructions for Lt James Cook, appointed to command His Majestys Bark Endeavour, 30 July 1768, in JM Bennett & AC Castles, A Source Book of Australian Legal History, Law Book Co, Sydney, 1979, 253-4. 0000061270 00000 n << [42]Justice JA Miles, Submission 263 (29 April 1981) 2-3. /Type /Page Thus British law was applied in the colony from the first. /Font << As a result, neither conquest, cession by treaty nor settlement establish an uncontestable legal relationship to property of each State and Territory in the land those jurisdictions encompass. Stuart argued that the law of perpetuities was not a 0000000676 00000 n The difference of course has been that where there were treaties a modern clawing-back has taken place to re-establish the honour of the Crown in Canada, America and New Zealand. /Contents 9 0 R Cambridge University Press (www.cambridge.org) is the publishing division of the University of Cambridge, one of the worlds leading research institutions and winner of 81 Nobel Prizes. For example, the classification of a country such as Australia was in 1788 as unoccupied territory (terra nullius) might well be incorrect if that classification had to be made by the standards of modern international law. 0000032924 00000 n The Select Committee of the House of Commons on Aborigines stated in 1837: The land has been taken from them without the assertion of any other title than that of superior force and by the commission under which the Australian colonies are governed, Her Majestys Sovereignty over the whole of New South Wales is asserted without reserve. f. Request Permissions, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. Difficulties of Application: The Status and Scope of the Interrogation Rules, 23. The difference between the laws of the two kinds of colony is that in those of the former kind all the English laws which are applicable to the colony are immediately in force there upon its foundation. When the House of Commons Select Committee on Aborigines reported: see para 64. Leading up to 9 July 1840, Governor George Gipps pored over papers relating to the law of recognition of indigenous rights to land. 0000020370 00000 n Phone +61 7 3052 4224 2) (1992) FACTS - 5 - Queensland took ownership of the Islands to the north, including the Murray Islands - Meriam people were an established group of people with their own customs and Browns intrusion was a direct attack on the Crowns albeit fictional feudal right as ultimate holder of the title to the waste lands. See also footnote 2 in Fitzmaurice, The Genealogy, 10 (1889) 14 App Cas 286 at 291; (1886) NSWR 1; Evening News, Sydney, Monday 17 August 1885 at 5; Darling Downs Gazette Saturday 6 April 1889; The Daily Northern Argus Rockhampton Monday 28 January 1889, 14 Exactly what the defendants counsel in Attorney-General v Brown had argued, see footnote 9. /Font << [39]4 & 5 Win IV c95 s 1; and see Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) s 48. (1979) 24 ALR 118 (Full Court). Aboriginal Customary Laws: Aboriginal Child Custody, Fostering and Adoption, Questions of Principle and Implementation, Federal, State and Territory Forums for Issues of Aboriginal Child Custody, Recognition of Customary or De Facto Adoption, Social Security and the Care and Custody of Aboriginal Children, 17. He is affiliated with many hospitals including San Luis Valley Regional Medical Center, Rio Grande Hospital. 0000063550 00000 n Arguments for the Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws, Arguments against the Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws, 9. >> Its authority to deal with claims was backdated from 1975 to 1840 in 1985 (Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1985 (NZ) s 3). For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions 0000038727 00000 n 0000004448 00000 n 8. Nevertheless, the Committee is of the view that if it is recognised that sovereignty did inhere in the Aboriginal people in a way not comprehended by those who applied the terra nullius doctrine at the time of occupation and settlement, then certain consequences flow which are proper to be dealt with in a compact between the descendants of those Aboriginal peoples and other Australians.[52]. A Legal Justification for a Treaty between Australia and Its Indigenous Peoples, Enter the World of Tech Start-Ups and Investments in Turkey, French and International Property and Tax Matters in 2023. Keywords: colonialism, colonisation, Cooper V Stuart, crown land, doctrine of tenure, New South Wales, Privy Council, settlements, terra nullius. Alexandria Park a tale of terra nullius | BarNews
Frankfurt S Bahn Schedule, Co2 Laser Before And After Photos, Articles W