Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Ceremonial Sitting To Mark The Occasion Of The Swearing In Of The Honourable Simon Harry Peter Steward As A Justice Of The High Court Of Australia
Date: 01 December 2020
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 5m
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.
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v. Shi
Case No.
S211/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
04/06/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Davies, Lee & Stewart JJ)
Catchwords
Evidence – Exceptions to privilege against self-incrimination – Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 128A – Where applicant commenced proceedings against respondent and two others seeking satisfaction of tax liabilities – Where applicant sought freezing orders with respect to respondent’s assets – Where Federal Court made ex parte freezing orders in relation to respondent’s worldwide assets – Where respondent also ordered to file and serve affidavit disclosing his worldwide assets – Where respondent filed two affidavits, one which was served on applicant, and one which was delivered to Federal Court in sealed envelope – Where respondent claimed privilege against self-incrimination in respect of second affidavit, invoking s 128A – Where prior to hearing of privilege claim, judgment entered for applicant in sum of $42,297,437.65 – Where primary judge accepted there were reasonable grounds for respondent’s claim for privilege against self-incrimination, but considered not in interests of justice that certificate be granted pursuant to s 128A(7), with consequence that applicant did not get access to second affidavit – Where majority of Full Court of Federal Court held that primary judge had erred in certain respects, but dismissed appeal – Whether availability of mechanism to compulsorily examine respondent as judgment debtor relevant to determining whether it was in interests of justice to grant s 128A certificate – Whether risk of derivative use of privileged information in event that s 128A certificate was granted should have been taken into account when determining whether it was in interests of justice to grant certificate.
Documents*
11/11/2020 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
24/11/2020 Notice of appeal
11/01/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
11/01/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
08/02/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
01/03/2021 Reply
14/04/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/04/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
14/04/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
04/08/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Zhang v. Commissioner of Police & Ors
Case No.
S129/2020
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Validity of legislation – Validity of warrants – Where plaintiff under investigation for alleged foreign interference offences, contrary to Criminal Code (Cth) sub-ss 92.3(1), (2) – Where plaintiff formerly employed part-time in office of member of New South Wales Parliament – Where magistrate, purporting to exercise power in s 3E of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), issued search warrant authorising AFP officers to enter and search plaintiff’s residential premises – Where magistrate also purported to make order under s 3LA, requiring plaintiff to provide information or assistance to officers enabling them to access, copy, or convert data held on computers or devices found in execution of warrant – Where searches took place, and pursuant to s 3K, certain items removed for examination – Where magistrate purported to exercise s 3E power and issued warrant authorising search of warehouse premises from which plaintiff and his wife conducted business – Where searches took place, material seized pursuant to s 3F, and electronic devices removed for examination pursuant to s 3K – Where registrar purported to exercise s 3E power and issued warrant authorising AFP officers to enter and search premises within NSW Parliament House – Where searches took place, and data copied to USB thumb drives pursuant to s 3F – Where magistrate made s 3LA order requiring plaintiff to provide information and assistance to police that would allow them to access data held in or accessible from phones moved to another place for examination after search of residential premises – Whether either or both of sub-ss 92.3(1), (2) invalid for impermissibly burdening implied freedom of political communication – Whether some or all of warrants are wholly or partly invalid on basis that they misstate substance of s 92.3(2) of Criminal Code, that they fail to state offences to which they relate with sufficient precision, or that either or both of sub-ss 92.3(1), (2) are invalid – If some or all of warrants are wholly or partly invalid, whether one or both of s 3LA orders are invalid.
Documents
03/08/2020 Application for Constitutional Writs
11/11/2020 Special Case Stated
12/11/2020 Order referring matter to the Full Court
18/11/2020 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
09/12/2020 Written submissions (First defendant and Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, intervening)
23/12/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
23/12/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening)
05/02/2021 Reply
07/04/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
07/04/2021 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)
07/04/2021 Outline of oral argument (First defendant and Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, intervening)
07/04/2021 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
07/04/2021 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the South Australia intervening)
08/04/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/05/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Ceremony: Remarks to Farewell the Honourable Justice Geoffrey Nettle AC as a Justice of the High Court of Australia
Date: 12 November 2020
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4m
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.
Minister for Home Affairs v. Benbrika
Case No.
M112/2020
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Validity of legislation – Criminal Code (Cth) Div 105A – Continuing detention orders – Where Minister for Home Affairs applied to Supreme Court of Victoria for continuing detention order against respondent pursuant to s 105A.7 of Criminal Code, and for interim detention order pursuant to s 105A.9 – Where on respondent’s application, question of constitutional validity of Div 105A referred to Court of Appeal – Where Commonwealth Attorney-General intervened and applied to have proceeding pending in Court of Appeal removed into High Court under s 40 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – Whether s 105A.7 purports to confer non-judicial power on courts exercising federal jurisdiction contrary to Ch III of Constitution – Whether s 105A.7 severable from balance of Div 105A.
Documents
30/10/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
03/11/2020 Cause Removed
09/11/2020 Written submissions (Respondent)
23/11/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
23/11/2020 Written submissions (Applicant)
27/11/2020 Reply
10/12/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
10/12/2020 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
10/12/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
10/02/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)