KABLE - ON SEIZING FEDERAL JURISDICTION
Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [1996] HCA 24; (1996) 189 CLR 51 (12 September 1996)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1996/24.html
McHUGH J.
15. Furthermore, a State court when it exercises federal jurisdiction invested under s 77(iii) is not a court different from the court that exercises the judicial power of the State. The judges of a State court who exercise the judicial power of the State are the same judges who exercise the judicial power of the Commonwealth invested in their courts pursuant to s 77(iii) of the Constitution. Indeed, it is not uncommon for a judge of a State court to administer State legislation in the course of the exercise of federal jurisdiction. It is common ground, for example, that in this very case Levine J made his order in the exercise of federal jurisdiction because he became seized of federal jurisdiction when the appellant contended that the Act was in breach of the Constitution.