Judicial Review
Comments
COURT OPINION - Upon reviewing the Crimes (Amendment 2) Act 2026, the Supreme Court has identified incompatibilities between the proposed legislation and existing statute law.
Under Part 1, Section 1(5) of the proposed Act, the offence of Perversion of Justice under the Crimes Act 2025 is replaced with Obstruction of Justice, which is designated as a Class A offence.
However, Part 2, Section 3 of the Prosecution Act 2025 already provides that a Presiding Judge who abuses their authority when overruling a jury's verdict may be charged with Obstruction of Justice, expressly classifying it as a Class B crime.
The proposed legislation therefore creates an inconsistency between two statutory provisions concerning the classification of the same named offence. While the Prosecution Act addresses a particular circumstance, the proposed amendment does not clarify whether that circumstance remains subject to the Class B classification or instead falls under the newly established Class A offence.
Furthermore, the proposed replacement of Perversion of Justice raises additional concerns, as the Prosecution Act 2025 continues to reference that offence in provisions concerning the discussion of ongoing cases and the recusal of judicial and Department of Justice officials. These references have not been addressed by the proposed amendments, creating uncertainty regarding their continued application.
Pursuant to Part 7 of the Legislation Act 2025, the Supreme Court is responsible for reviewing primary legislation for incompatibilities with existing law or the Constitution. The Court finds that the unresolved inconsistency in the classification of Obstruction of Justice constitutes grounds for failing this Judicial Review.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court determines that the Crimes (Amendment 2) Act 2026 is Unconstitutional by unanimous vote and shall not proceed into statute law.