When Crown land is reserved for 'future public requirements' and a Licence or Permissive Occupancy has been granted for grazing, the lawfulness of the instrument depends on the Minister's purpose in granting it, not on the use authorised. Where the instrument contains land management and maintenance obligations, nominal rent, prohibition on residence, and is revocable at will, the inference may be drawn that the Minister's purpose was to preserve the land for future public requirements, rendering the land 'lawfully used or occupied' and not claimable under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW). The party challenging the lawfulness of the instrument bears a practical evidential burden to identify a sensible competing inference as to the Minister's purpose.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.