When s 211 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) is invoked in criminal or civil proceedings, the legal burden of proof falls on the prosecutor or proponent to negative the application of the provision, not on the defendant to establish it; the contrary holding in Dietman v Karpany is disapproved. The s 211 immunity is limited to activities directly satisfying needs of sustenance or consumption and does not extend to sale or trade outside the community.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.