1 Introduction 1
Ⅰ.The Relevant Scenarios 3
Ⅱ.Definitional Difficulties 7
Ⅲ.The Original Legal Entrenchment of the Doctrine and the Underlying Rationale 10
Ⅳ. The Possibility of General Principles and Interpretational Methodology 14
Ⅴ. The Purposive Nature of The Separation of Powers Doctrine 29
Ⅵ.The Problem of Definition and the Formalist Approach 37
Ⅶ.Core Branch Functions? 40
2 Legislative Interference in the Pending Case Scenario: The Foundation of Principle and the Australian Position 57
Ⅰ.Introduction 57
Ⅱ.The Australian Constitutional Position and the Early Australian Constitutional Scholars 57
Ⅲ.Early Development of Principle by the High Court 65
Ⅳ The Foundation of a Discrete Set of Principles Governing the Pending Case Scenario: Liyanage v R 67
Ⅴ. Consolidation of Principle Post-Liyanage 74
Ⅵ.The Direction Rule at the Crossroads: Nicholas v The Queen 90
Ⅶ.The Uncertain Status of the Direction Principle in Australia 113
3 Legislative Interference with Judicial Functions: The Jurisprudence of the United States, Evaluation of Principle, and Towards Resolution 117
Ⅰ.Introduction 117
Ⅱ.The Emergence of the Changed Law Rule and the Direction Principle in the United States 121
Ⅲ.Klein and Its Uncertain Meaning 124
Ⅳ. Hart’s Thesis and the United States Foundation of the Direction Principle 131
Ⅴ. The Decline of the Direction Rule: The Robertson Case 135
Ⅵ.Robertson’s Uncertain Legacy: Plaut v Spendthrift Farm Inc 145
Ⅶ.Klein Qualified, Overruled or Misinterpreted? Miller v French 152
Ⅷ.The Schiavo Litigation 162
Ⅸ.Further Confirmation of the Direction Principle 168
Ⅹ.General Conclusions on the Separation of Powers and the Pending Case Scenario 170
ⅩⅠ.Towards a Resolution 174
ⅩⅡ.A Reformulated Direction Principle 177
ⅩⅢ.Speculative Propositions 180
ⅩⅣ Conclusion 186
4 The Separation of Powers and Final Judgments: Defining the Principle Limiting Legislative Revision of Final Judgments 191
Ⅰ.Introduction and Definition of Final Judgment 191
Ⅱ.Reflections on Finality Where the Separation Doctrine is Not Entrenched 195
Ⅲ.A Middle Case: India 202
Ⅳ.Early Australian Commentary on the Constitutional Protection of Final Judgments 206
Ⅴ. The Current Australian Position 210
Ⅵ.Qualifications 212
Ⅶ.A Reinforcement of Australian Jurisprudence: The Irish Position on Final Judgments 215
Ⅷ.The United States Supreme Court and Final Judgments 217
Ⅸ.The Wheeling Bridge Qualification 222
Ⅹ.The Development and Consolidation of Principle by the United States Supreme Court 224
ⅩⅠ.The Inviolability Principle Tested: Miller v French 236
ⅩⅡ.Conclusion 245
5 Qualifications to the Inviolability of Final Judgments and Final Summation 247
Ⅰ.Introduction 247
Ⅱ.The Wheeling Bridge Qualification, the Regulation of Public Rights and ‘Conditional’ Final Judgments 249
Ⅲ.The Waiver Qualification 251
Ⅳ.Conclusions on the Final Case Scenario 267
6 Protections Afforded Decisional Independence in Jurisdictions without an Entrenched Separation of Powers 271
Ⅰ.Introduction 271
Ⅱ.The United Kingdom and the Separation of Powers 272
Ⅲ.The European Convention on Human Rights 288
Ⅳ.The United Kingdom, the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. 302
Ⅴ. Canons of Statutory Intepretation 306
7 Conclusion 311
Index 321