AI assisted
Let me first verify the content of APH Infosheet 23 before drafting.[HCA-2026-03-05-21]
Excellent. The full content of Infosheet 23 is now verified. Several of its provisions are directly relevant. Here is the draft article.
No Conviction, No Penalty: An Ancient Constitutional Guarantee That Has Never Been Repealed
Nulla poena sine lege, nulla poena sine crimine — No penalty without law, no penalty without a crime.
There is a principle so fundamental to the legal system inherited by Australia that the Parliament of Australia’s own official educational materials acknowledge it, the Bill of Rights 1688 entrenches it, and Magna Carta planted its seed eight centuries ago. Yet many men and women who find themselves subject to fines, forfeitures, and penalties imposed by government agencies have never been told that this principle exists, or that it applies directly to their situation.
That principle is this. No penalty can lawfully be applied to a man or woman before a court has made a finding against them. No fine, no forfeiture, no loss of right can precede conviction or judgment. And any judge, officer, or agency that proceeds otherwise is acting contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm, in terms that the Bill of Rights 1688 declared to be among the undoubted ancient rights and liberties of every free man and woman.
What the Bill of Rights 1688 Actually Says
The Bill of Rights 1688, officially titled An Act declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne, is not merely a historical document. It is a statute of the English Parliament that forms part of the constitutional inheritance of Australia and has never been repealed in this jurisdiction.
Among the specific wrongs that the Bill of Rights 1688 declared to have been committed by King James II, and which it condemned as utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm, was the following, set out under the heading “Grants of Fines, &c. before Conviction”:
“And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed. All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme.”
The Bill of Rights 1688 then went further, listing three separate declarations of individual right under their own headings, each of which had been violated by the previous regime:
“And excessive Baile hath beene required of Persons committed in Criminall Cases to elude the Benefitt of the Lawes made for the Liberty of the Subjects.”
“And excessive Fines have beene imposed.”
“And illegall and cruell Punishments inflicted.”
Read together, these provisions establish a clear and unambiguous constitutional guarantee. A fine, forfeiture, or penalty cannot be imposed before a court has made a finding of conviction or judgment against the man or woman upon whom it is to be levied. Excessive bail, excessive fines, and illegal and cruel punishments are each independently condemned. And the men and women assembled at Westminster in 1688 declared all of these to be their undoubted rights and liberties, insisting that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example.
That insistence was addressed to all future governments. It has not expired.
What the Parliament of Australia’s Own Materials Confirm
The Australian Parliament House Infosheet 23, published by the House of Representatives and available on the Parliament of Australia’s official website, provides a plain English explanation of the key legal principles that govern Australia’s system of government. Several of its statements are directly relevant here.
On the Bill of Rights itself, Infosheet 23 states that the Bill of Rights Act 1688 is important in the rule of law in Australia, and that it included rights affecting the individual, including the prohibition of excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment, and an important provision that laws should not be executed, dispensed with or suspended without Parliament’s consent.
On the rule of law, Infosheet 23 states that the rule of law is the principle that a nation should be governed by law and that all individuals, including government officials and lawmakers themselves, are subject to the law and equally accountable before it. Then, in terms that could not be more directly relevant to the argument of this article, it states: “A person cannot be punished unless a court has found a breach of the law.”
That is not a theoretical proposition. It is the Parliament of Australia’s own statement of the foundational rule that governs how every man and woman in this country is to be treated by the legal system.
On due process, Infosheet 23 confirms that the phrase “due process of law” comes from statutes founded on Magna Carta, and that it provides that none shall be condemned without due process of law, and none shall be put to answer without due process of law. Due process, the Infosheet states, has come to mean the conduct of legal proceedings according to established principles and procedures designed to ensure a fair trial, also referred to as natural justice or procedural fairness.
On the presumption of innocence, Infosheet 23 states that the prosecution must prove guilt, that the accused does not have to prove innocence, and that every man and woman is considered to be innocent until proven guilty.
On the principle of legality, Infosheet 23 confirms that it is a common law presumption that protects citizens from arbitrary uses of power, relying on the assumption that Parliament would not intend to abolish or modify fundamental individual rights through any law or statute it passed unless this intention had been specifically expressed in the legislation. In plain terms, any ambiguity in the wording of a statute is to be resolved in favour of protecting fundamental common law rights, freedoms, and immunities.
What These Principles Mean Together
Taken together, the Bill of Rights 1688 and the principles confirmed in Infosheet 23 establish a coherent and mutually reinforcing set of constitutional guarantees that apply to every man and woman in Australia.
First, no fine, forfeiture, or penalty can lawfully be imposed before a court has made a finding of conviction or judgment. This is not a technical point. It is a constitutional guarantee that predates the Commonwealth of Australia by more than two centuries.
Second, no man or woman can be punished unless a court has found a breach of the law. The Parliament of Australia’s own materials acknowledge this in plain terms. It is the rule of law itself.
Third, every man and woman is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution, not on the man or woman charged.
Fourth, any law that purports to impose fines, forfeitures, or penalties on a man or woman without first requiring a finding of conviction or judgment against them is to be read narrowly under the principle of legality. Unless Parliament has used language that is clear, express, and unmistakably intended to abrogate this fundamental right, the right stands.
Fifth, due process requires that legal proceedings be conducted according to established principles designed to ensure a fair trial. An administrative or statutory penalty imposed without a hearing, without a finding of harm, and without a conviction or judgment does not meet that standard.
The Obligation on Judges
The Bill of Rights 1688 is directed not merely at the executive but at the administration of justice itself. King James II was condemned specifically for the conduct of partial, corrupt, and unqualified persons on juries, for illegal prosecutions, for excessive bail, excessive fines, and illegal and cruel punishments. The entire judicial apparatus of the realm was implicated in those wrongs.
The constitutional response was to declare that the obligation rests on judges to ensure that no fine, forfeiture, or penalty is imposed before conviction or judgment. A judge who imposes a penalty without first making a finding against the man or woman affected is acting in precisely the manner that the Bill of Rights 1688 condemned and declared contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm.
The rule of law, as confirmed in Infosheet 23, means that all individuals, including government officials, are subject to the law and equally accountable before it. That accountability includes the judiciary. A court that applies a penalty before finding a breach is not exercising judicial power. It is exercising arbitrary power, which is precisely what the Bill of Rights 1688 was enacted to prevent.
The Harm Principle
Underlying all of these provisions is the principle that a man or woman cannot be penalised unless harm has occurred or been threatened. The common law maxim injuria sine damno – a wrong without damage – has never, in the common law tradition, been sufficient to found a claim or impose a penalty in the vast majority of cases.
A court that proceeds to impose a penalty without identifying the harm caused, the man or woman to whom that harm was caused, and the causal connection between the conduct of the accused and that harm is not making a finding of conviction or judgment within the meaning of the Bill of Rights 1688. It is proceeding in defiance of the foundational principle that punishment follows proven wrongdoing, not mere assertion of authority.
The Parliament of Australia’s own statement that a man or woman cannot be punished unless a court has found a breach of the law is a restatement of this principle. A breach of the law, properly understood, requires an act or omission that caused harm. Without harm, without a finding of harm, and without a conviction or judgment based on that finding, no penalty can lawfully follow.
A Note for Any Man or Woman Facing a Penalty
If you are a man or woman who has been subjected to a fine, forfeiture, or penalty by any government agency, court, or officer without a prior finding of conviction or judgment against you, the following principles apply to your situation and are supported by the authorities discussed in this article.
The Bill of Rights 1688, which forms part of the constitutional inheritance of Australia, declares that grants and promises of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm.
The Parliament of Australia’s own Infosheet 23 confirms that a man or woman cannot be punished unless a court has found a breach of the law.
The principle of legality, confirmed by Infosheet 23 and by the High Court in Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277, requires that any statute purporting to impose a penalty without conviction or judgment be read narrowly, and that ambiguity be resolved in favour of the fundamental right.
Magna Carta, as confirmed by Infosheet 23, provides that none shall be condemned without due process of law.
These are not obscure propositions. They are the foundational principles of the legal system of Australia, acknowledged by the Parliament of Australia itself. Every man and woman has the right to invoke them, and every court and officer has the obligation to apply them.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum — Let justice be done though the heavens fall.
This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers seeking to rely on any of the principles discussed should conduct their own research.
The full text of APH Infosheet 23 is available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-Infosheets/Infosheet_23-_Basic_legal_expressions
Last Updated 6 months ago
Views: 201