DL v. The Queen
Case No.
S309/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
13/04/2017 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Leeming JA, Rothman J, Wilson J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Appeal against sentence – Muldrock error – Miscarriage of justice – Where appellant convicted of murder – Where primary judge sentenced appellant to 22 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 17 years – Where appellant appealed sentence to Court of Criminal Appeal – Where Crown conceded in light of Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 44 CLR 120 that primary judge erred in application of standard non-parole period legislation – Where majority of Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed appeal, holding no lesser sentence warranted – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal denied appellant procedural fairness – Whether majority of Court of Criminal Appeal erred in substituting aggravated factual findings in absence of challenge to primary judge’s findings in circumstances where majority held findings open to primary judge.
Documents
15/12/2017 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
21/12/2017 Notice of appeal
02/02/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)
02/02/2018 Chronology (Appellant)
02/03/2018 Written submissions (Respondent)
23/03/2018 Reply
11/05/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/05/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
11/05/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
08/08/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Lane v. The Queen
Case No.
S308/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
22/03/2017 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Meagher JA, Davies J, Fagan J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Proviso – Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 6(1) – Where jury found appellant not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter – Where Crown alleged two discrete voluntary acts causing death – Where Court of Criminal Appeal held trial judge erred by failing to direct that jury must be unanimous as to at least one of acts upon which the Crown relied – Where majority of Court of Appeal held no substantial miscarriage of justice within meaning of s 6(1) – Whether majority of Court of Criminal Appeal erred in application of proviso.
Documents
15/12/2017 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
21/12/2017 Notice of appeal
02/02/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)
02/02/2018 Chronology (Appellant)
02/03/2018 Written submissions (Respondent)
23/03/2018 Reply
16/05/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
16/05/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
16/05/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
20/06/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)
WET044 v. Republic of Nauru
Case No.
M132/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
29/08/2017 Supreme Court of Nauru (Crulci J)
Catchwords
Migration – Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 (Cth) – Refugees Convention Act 2012 (Nr) – Where appellant applied to Nauru for refugee status determination under Act – Where Secretary of Nauru Department of Justice determined appellant not refugee and not entitled to complementary protection – Where Refugee Status Review Tribunal affirmed Secretary’s determination – Where Supreme Court of Nauru dismissed appeal – Whether appellant should be permitted to raise new grounds of appeal – Whether Tribunal erred by failing to consider submissions and country information with respect to risk of return as failed asylum seeker – Whether Tribunal denied appellant procedural fairness.
Documents
12/09/2017 Notice of appeal
02/11/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
24/11/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
28/11/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
08/12/2017 Reply (Appellant)
14/02/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/02/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
14/02/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
11/04/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)
EMP144 v. Republic of Nauru
Case No.
M151/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
27/09/2017 Supreme Court of Nauru (Khan J)
Catchwords
Migration – Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 (Cth) – Refugees Convention Act 2012 (Nr) – Where appellant applied to Nauru for refugee status determination under Act – Where Secretary of Nauru Department of Justice determined appellant not refugee and not entitled to complementary protection – Where Refugee Status Review Tribunal affirmed Secretary’s determination – Where Supreme Court of Nauru dismissed appeal – Whether Supreme Court erred by failing to conclude Tribunal failed to consider objections to relocation under Refugees Convention – Whether Supreme Court erred in failing to conclude Tribunal denied appellant procedural fairness – Whether Supreme Court erred by failing to conclude Tribunal failed to consider integers of complementary protection claim – Whether Supreme Court erred in failing to conclude Tribunal misapplied Nauruan law of complementary protection by applying “reasonable relocation” test.
Documents
11/10/2017 Notice of appeal
16/11/2017 Written submissions - redacted (Appellant)
16/11/2017 Chronology - redacted (Appellant)
12/12/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
19/01/2018 Reply (Appellant )
31/01/2018 Amended chronology - redacted (Appellant)
31/01/2018 Amended reply (Appellant)
07/02/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
07/02/2018 Outline of oral argument on common grounds (Appellant)
07/02/2018 Outline of oral argument on common grounds (Respondent)
07/02/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
08/02/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
08/02/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
16/05/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)
DWN027 v. Republic of Nauru
Case No.
M145/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
22/09/2017 Supreme Court of Nauru (Khan J)
Catchwords
Migration – Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 (Cth) – Refugees Convention Act 2012 (Nr) – Where appellant applied to Nauru for refugee status determination under Act – Where Secretary of Nauru Department of Justice determined appellant not refugee and not entitled to complementary protection – Where Refugee Status Review Tribunal affirmed Secretary’s determination – Where Supreme Court of Nauru dismissed appeal – Whether Supreme Court erred in failing to conclude Tribunal misapplied Nauruan law of complementary protection by applying “reasonable relocation” test – Whether Supreme Court erred in failing to conclude Tribunal erred by failing to consider Nauru’s obligations under Convention on the Rights of the Child – Whether Supreme Court erred in failing to conclude Tribunal erred by failing to consider integer of appellant’s objections to relocation.
Documents
06/10/2017 Notice of appeal
24/11/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
24/11/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
15/12/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
05/01/2018 Reply
07/02/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
07/02/2018 Outline of oral argument on common grounds (Appellant)
07/02/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
07/02/2018 Outline of oral argument on grounds 2 and 3 (Appellant)
08/02/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
16/05/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)