Abstract
In a recent article in this Review Mr Murray-Jones considered the state of the law of inconsistency. Mr Rumble takes issue with some of Mr Murray-Jones' propositions and, in particular, with his interpretation of some of the leading High Court judgments.
Some of the most troubling statements about inconsistency that have emanated from the High Court have been related to the problem of persons who commit both Commonwealth and State offences. This article considers how the provisions of the Crimes Act, the Acts Interpretation Act, the Judiciary Act and the Commonwealth Prisoners Act interact in such circumstances.
The article also offers an analysis of the nature of inconsistency. The basic proposition of the analysis is that, no matter how many different guidelines are developed to indicate the presence of inconsistency, ultimately there is only one category of inconsistency.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.