Murphy v. Electoral Commissioner & Anor

Case No.

M247/2015

Case Information

Catchwords

Constitutional law – Legislative power – Franchise – Constitutional limitations upon power of Parliament to regulate exercise of entitlement to enrol to vote – Date for close of Electoral Rolls in Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) – Where Act suspends the enrolment or transfer of enrolment of electors in the period between the close of the Rolls and the close of the poll – Whether denial of enrolment effected by Act contravenes constitutional requirement that representatives be "directly chosen by the people" – Whether amendments operated as disqualification from entitlement to vote and, if so, whether disqualification for substantial reason – Relevance of Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) 233 CLR 162 – Relevance of Rowe v Electoral Commissioner (2010) 243 CLR 1.

Short Particulars

Documents*

27/11/2015 Application for an order to show cause

27/11/2015 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)

16/02/2016 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)

15/03/2016 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)

18/03/2016 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)

24/03/2016 Special case stated

24/03/2016 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)

11/04/2016 Written submissions (Plaintiff)

11/04/2016 Chronology

26/04/2016 Written submissions (Second Defendant)

26/04/2016 Submitting appearance (First Defendant)

26/04/2016 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)

04/05/2016 Reply

11/05/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only. 

Sio v. The Queen

Case No.

S83/2016

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

31/03/2015 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Leeming JA, Johnson J, Schmidt J)

[2015] NSWCCA 42

Catchwords

Criminal law – conviction appeal – armed robbery – joint criminal enterprise – unreasonable verdict – where appellant was acquitted of constructive murder based on the appellant’s participation in a joint criminal enterprise to commit armed robbery – where appellant was convicted of armed robbery with wounding – whether appellant’s conviction on alternative count is inconsistent with acquittal on principle count.

Criminal law – evidence – hearsay rule – accomplice – made admission against interest in police interview – accomplice not available - whether the trial judge was required to take into account the “demonstrable unreliability” of individual representations to determine whether interview was “made in circumstance that made it likely the representation was reliable”.

Documents*

11/03/2016 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)

23/03/2016 Notice of appeal

12/04/2016 Written submissions (Appellant)

12/04/2016 Chronology (Appellant)

03/05/2016 Written submissions (Respondent)

17/05/2016 Reply

15/06/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only. 

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor v. SZSSJ & Anor
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Ors v. SZTZI

Case Nos.

S75/2016; S76/2016

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

25/09/2015 Federal Court of Australia (Rares J, Perram J, Griffiths J)

[2015] FCAFC 125

Catchwords

Migration – procedural fairness – whether the processes adopted by the Department for considering consequences of release of personal information for protection visa applicant in immigration detention procedurally fair – whether the Full Court erred in finding that s 197C of the Migration Act 1958 does not apply because the respondent had an accrued right not to be removed from Australia under s 198 until a procedurally fair assessment of his/her non-refoulement claims was conducted – whether Federal Circuit Court has jurisdiction to determine the claims – whether the rules of procedural fairness apply to conduct preparatory to the Minister’s dispensing powers under s 48B, 195A and 417 – whether the conduct of officers of the Department are capable of generating an obligation of procedural fairness in circumstances in which the rules of procedural fairness would not otherwise apply.

Documents*

11/03/2016 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)

21/03/2016 Notice of appeal – SZSSJ

21/03/2016 Notice of appeal – SZTZI

15/04/2016 Written submissions – SZSSJ & SZTZI (Appellants)

15/04/2016 Chronology (Appellants) – SZSSJ (Appellants)

15/04/2016 Chronology (Appellants) – SZTZI (Appellants)

06/05/2016 Written submissions – SZSSJ (Respondent)

06/05/2016 Written submissions – SZTZI (Respondent)

20/05/2016 Reply – SZSSJ

20/05/2016 Reply – SZTZI

07/06/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only. 

Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra

Case: Nguyen v. The Queen

Date: 10 March 2016

Transcript: Hearing

AV time: 1h 15m

 

You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.

 

 

Terms of use

Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:

(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court.  However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.

(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.

(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.

By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.

 

Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra

Case: Attwells & Anor v. Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Limited

Date: 08 March 2016

Transcript: Hearing

AV time: 5h 12m

 

You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.

 

 

Terms of use

Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:

(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court.  However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.

(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.

(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.

By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.

 

Page 4 of 95