Nathanson v. Minister for Home Affairs & Anor
Case No.
M73/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
09/10/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Wigney, Steward and Jackson JJ)
Catchwords
Administrative law – Jurisdictional error – Procedural fairness – Materiality – Where applicant’s visa cancelled by delegate on character grounds – Where, after delegate’s decision but before Tribunal review, Minister issued new direction, which relevantly included as additional factor violent crimes against women or children viewed “very seriously, regardless of sentence imposed” – Where applicant not put on notice prior to Tribunal hearing that past incidents of alleged domestic violence would be taken into account, despite not having been charged or convicted of any crimes – Where applicant not given opportunity to call further evidence nor make further submissions on domestic violence issue – Where applicant applied for judicial review of Tribunal decision – Where Minister conceded Tribunal denied procedural fairness and majority of Full Federal Court dismissed application on basis applicant failed to show realistic possibility of different outcome – Whether Full Federal Court applied correct test of materiality – Whether applicant’s denial of procedural fairness material and constituted jurisdictional error.
Documents*
15/10/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
29/10/2021 Notice of appeal
03/12/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
03/12/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
17/01/2022 Written submissions (First respondent)
07/02/2022 Reply
10/03/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/03/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
10/03/2022 Outline of oral argument (First respondent)
17/08/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Montgomery v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor
Case No.
S173/2021
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Aliens power – Immigration detention – Indigenous Australians – Where applicant born in and citizen of New Zealand and not Australian citizen – Where applicant’s parents and ancestors not Aboriginal Australian or Torres Strait Islanders – Where applicant granted visa to live in Australia in 1997 – Where Mununjali people Indigenous society existing in Australia since prior to 1788 – Where applicant identifies as member of Mununjali people, recognised by Mununjali elders and by Mununjali traditional law and customs as such – Where, in 2018, applicant’s visa cancelled – Where in 2019, applicant taken into immigration detention – Where, in Love v Commonwealth; Thoms v Commonwealth [2020] HCA 3, majority of High Court held Aboriginal Australian who satisfies tripartite test identified in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 beyond reach of aliens power in s 51(xix) of Constitution – Where applicant commenced proceedings in Federal Court of Australia, relevantly seeking declaration not alien within meaning of s 51(xix) following Love/Thoms – Whether decision in Love/Thoms be overturned – Whether applicant satisfies tripartite test despite not being biologically descended from Indigenous people – Whether applicant alien.
Documents
11/10/2021 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video connection)
18/10/2021 Cause Removed
08/11/2021 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video-connection)
29/11/2021 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video-connection)
02/12/2021 Notice of discontinuance
06/12/2021 Written submissions (Applicant)
20/12/2021 Written submissions (Respondents)
04/02/2022 Reply
Thoms v. Commonwealth of Australia
Case No.
B56/2021
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Aliens power – Immigration detention – Wrongful imprisonment – Where applicant held in immigration detention pursuant to s 189 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where officers who detained applicant suspected he was unlawful non-citizen because not Australian citizen and did not have visa – Where, in Love v Commonwealth; Thoms v Commonwealth [2020] HCA 3, majority of High Court declared applicant not alien for purposes of s 51(xix) of Constitution, and applicant was released from immigration detention – Where applicant’s claim remitted to Federal Court of Australia, where applicant sought declaration detention unlawful and not supported by s 189 of Migration Act, and damages for wrongful imprisonment – Where Federal Court ordered question of whether detention unlawful be determined separately – Whether within scope of aliens power for s 189 of Migration Act to validly authorise immigration detention of persons who are subjectively suspected to be unlawful non-citizen, even if person later found not alien – Whether applicant’s detention unlawful
Documents*
11/10/2021 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video connection)
18/10/2021 Cause Removed
22/10/2021 Written submissions (Applicant)
12/11/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
26/11/2021 Reply
09/03/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
09/03/2022 Outline of oral argument (Applicant)
09/03/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
08/06/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Farm Transparency International Ltd & Anor v. State of New South Wales
Case No.
S83/2021
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Implied freedom of political communication – Where s 7 of Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) prohibited installation, use and maintenance of listening devices to record private conversations – Where s 8 prohibited installation, use and maintenance of optical surveillance devices on premises without owner or occupier’s consent – Where s 11 created offence to communicate or publish material recorded in contravention of ss 7 or 8 – Where s 12 created offence to possess material knowing it had been recorded in contravention of ss 7 or 8 – Where plaintiffs published photographs and recordings of animal agricultural practices in New South Wales in contravention of ss 11 and 12 and intends to continue to engage in such activity – Whether ss 11 and 12 impermissibly burden implied freedom of communication – If so, whether ss 11 and 12 severable in respect of operation on political communication.
Documents*
10/06/2021 Writ of summons
27/09/2021 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane and video connection)
27/09/2021 Special case stated
28/10/2021 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
24/11/2021 Written submissions (Defendant)
07/12/2021 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
08/12/2021 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia intervening)
08/12/2021 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
08/12/2021 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
20/12/2021 Reply
10/02/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/02/2022 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiffs)
09/02/2022 Outline of oral argument (Defendant)
10/02/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia intervening)
10/02/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
10/02/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
10/02/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
11/02/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
18/02/2022 Note (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia intervening)
10/08/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Hoang v. The Queen
Case No.
S146 to S149/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
03/08/2018 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Hoeben CJ at CL; Campbell and N Adams JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Juror misconduct – Juror conducting own inquiries – Mandatory discharge – Where s 53A of Jury Act 1977 (NSW) required mandatory discharge of juror if juror engaged in misconduct – Where s 68C provided juror must not make own inquiries “for purpose of obtaining information” about matters relevant to trial – Where applicant charged with 12 offences – Where jury commenced deliberations and, on 5 November 2015, jury sent note to trial judge stating agreement reached on 8 counts – Where, on evening of 5 November, juror conducted internet search for personal reasons only on matter related to trial – Where jury continued deliberating on 6 November until jury foreperson notified trial judge of juror’s actions – Where trial judge took verdicts on 10 counts before discharging juror pursuant to s 53A – Where remaining jurors continued deliberating and gave verdict on remaining 2 counts – Where applicant appealed on basis trial judge failed to discharge juror prior to taking of first 10 counts – Where Court of Criminal Appeal held no juror misconduct and dismissed appeal – Whether inquiries made “for purpose of obtaining information” in s 68C includes juror making inquiries for solely personal reasons – If so, whether juror should have been discharged prior to taking of first 10 counts – If so, whether verdicts on any counts valid.
Documents*
10/09/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video-connection)
24/09/2021 Notices of appeal
29/10/2021 Written submissions (Appellant in S146/2021)
29/10/2021 Written submissions (Appellant in S147/2021)
29/10/2021 Written submissions (Appellant in S148/2021)
29/10/2021 Written submissions (Appellant in S149/2021)
29/10/2021 Chronology (Appellant in S146/2021)
29/10/2021 Chronology (Appellant in S147/2021)
29/10/2021 Chronology (Appellant in S148/2021)
29/10/2021 Chronology (Appellant in S149/2021)
26/11/2021 Written submissions (Respondent - all matters)
15/12/2021 Reply (Appellant in S146/2021)
15/12/2021 Reply (Appellant in S147/2021)
15/12/2021 Reply (Appellant in S148/2021)
15/12/2021 Reply (Appellant in S149/2021)
16/03/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
16/03/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant - all matters)
16/03/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondent - all matters)
13/04/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)