DQU16 & Ors v. Minister for Home Affairs & Anor
Case No.
S169/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
22/04/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Reeves J)
Catchwords
Migration law – Complementary protection – Where first applicant had worked as alcohol distributor in Iraq and claimed he would be targeted for doing so if he returned to Iraq – Where applications for temporary protection visas refused by Minister’s delegate – Where Immigration Assessment Authority (“IAA”) affirmed delegate’s decision finding first applicant could take reasonable step of not selling alcohol to avoid real chance of persecution in Iraq – Whether principles in Appellant S395/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 216 CLR 473 applicable in considering complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Whether, in determining complementary protection claims, IAA may rely on finding made in relation to claim for refugee status as to future changes in applicant’s behaviour without addressing reason for intended changed conduct.
Documents
09/09/2020 Determination (SLA, Sydney)
22/09/2020 Notice of appeal
28/10/2020 Written submissions (Appellants)
28/10/2020 Chronology (Appellants)
25/11/2020 Written submissions (First respondent)
16/12/2020 Reply
04/02/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
04/02/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
04/02/2021 Outline of oral argument (First respondent)
07/04/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Palmer & Anor v. The State of Western Australia & Anor
Case No.
B26/2020
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Section 92 – Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions (WA) (“Directions”) – Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA) (“Act”) – Where on 15 March 2020, pursuant to s 56 of Act, WA Minister for Emergency Services declared state of emergency over whole State of WA to address pandemic caused by COVID-19 – Where state of emergency continued and extended – Where on 5 April 2020, State Emergency Coordinator (second defendant) issued Directions, purportedly pursuant to ss 61, 67, 70 and 72A of Act – Where Directions prohibited entry to WA with limited exceptions for “exempt travellers” – Where Directions subsequently amended, but no change made to broad aim of implementing “hard border” policy – Where first plaintiff Chairman and Managing Director of second plaintiff – Where second plaintiff corporation holds interests in mining projects in WA, and has offices and staff in Brisbane and Perth – Where first plaintiff ordinarily resides in Queensland, but travels to WA often for business, social, charitable, and political purposes – Where first plaintiff unsuccessfully applied for “exempt traveller” status – Whether Directions and/or Act wholly or partly invalid on basis that they impermissibly infringe s 92 Constitution.
Documents*
25/05/2020 Writ of Summons
28/05/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)
12/06/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)
16/06/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)
12/08/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)
04/09/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)
10/09/2020 Order referring matter to the Full Court
15/09/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)
16/09/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne) - VACATED
17/09/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)
22/09/2020 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
22/09/2020 Chronology (Plaintiffs)
25/09/2020 Written submissions (Mr Ludlow seeking leave to intervene)
28/09/2020 Notice of constitutional matter (Mr Ludlow seeking leave to intervene)
12/10/2020 Written submissions (Defendants)
19/10/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
19/10/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
19/10/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory intervening)
19/10/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Northern Territory of Australia intervening)
19/10/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
19/10/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania intervening)
26/10/2020 Reply
02/11/2020 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
02/11/2020 Written submissions (Defendants)
03/11/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
03/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiffs)
03/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Defendants)
04/11/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
04/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
04/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
04/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory intervening)
04/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
04/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania intervening)
06/11/2020 Pronouncement of orders
24/02/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
LibertyWorks Inc v. Commonwealth of Australia
Case No.
S10/2020
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Validity of legislation – Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 (Cth) (“FITS Act”) – Where plaintiff is a not-for-profit think-tank incorporated in Queensland – Where in August 2019, plaintiff organised and held Conservative Political Action Conference in Sydney – Where US corporation, American Conservative Union (“ACU”), runs conference with same name in US, where ACU board members spoke at Sydney conference, and where ACU was advertised as “Think Tank Host Partners” for Sydney conference – Where plaintiff not registered under FITS Act – Where in October 2019, notice under s 45 of FITS Act issued to President of plaintiff, requiring plaintiff to provide certain information within specified period – Where s 59 of FITS Act provides for offence of failing to comply with s 45 notice within time – Where in November 2019, President of plaintiff replied to notice, refusing to provide requested information and disputing validity of notice – Whether terms, operation, or effect of FITS Act impermissibly burden implied freedom of political communication – Whether FITS Act contravenes s 92 of Constitution by impermissibly burdening freedom of intercourse – Whether FITS Act supported by head of power in s 51 Constitution.
Documents*
07/02/2020 Writ of Summons
20/08/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
24/08/2020 Special Case
25/08/2020 Order referring special case to the Full Court
18/09/2020 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
21/10/2020 Written submissions (Defendants)
04/11/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General of South Australia, intervening)
04/11/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General of New South Wales, intervening)
11/11/2020 Reply
02/03/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
01/03/2021 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of New South Wales, intervening)
02/03/2021 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)
02/03/2021 Outline of oral argument (Defendants)
16/06/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
14/12/2022 Prouncement of orders (Full Court, Canberra)
MZAPC v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Case No.
M77/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
04/12/2019 Federal Court of Australia (Mortimer J)
Catchwords
Migration law –Procedural fairness –Materiality –Where appellant applied for protection visa–Where appellant’s criminal record and related material provided to Administrative Appeals Tribunal(“AAT”)by first respondent without appellant’s knowledge –Where certificate under s 438ofMigration Act1958(Cth) issued in relation to criminal record and related material and appellant not notified of certificate–Where criminal record disclosed history of serious traffic offences–Where AAT affirmed delegate’s decision to refuse visa application–Where appeal to Federal Circuit Court dismissed –Where appeal to Federal Court dismissed –Where common ground that failure to notify appellant of certificate constituted denial of procedural fairness –Whether, when considering materiality of denial of procedural fairness occasioned by failure to notify appellant of s 438 certificate, appellant bore onus of rebutting presumption that AAT did not rely on documents subject to certificate and had to prove that documents had been taken into account by AAT –Whether Federal Court erred in finding that denial of procedural fairness immaterial on basis that offences disclosed in criminal record not rationally capable of impacting appellant’s credibility before AAT.
Documents
14/08/2020 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
28/08/2020 Notice of appeal
02/10/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
02/10/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
30/10/2020 Written submissions (First respondent)
19/11/2020 Reply
05/03/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
05/03/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
05/03/2021 Outline of oral argument (First respondent)
19/05/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Miller v. The Queen
Case No.
A19/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
29/07/2019 Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Stanley, Parker, Doyle JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law –Provocation –Where appellant charged with murder and tried before judge and jury –Where self-defence left to jury, but not provocation –Where appellant convicted of murder –Where on appeal to Court of Criminal Appeal (“CCA”), appellant contended provocation should have been left to jury –Where CCA dismissed appeal –Whether CCA erred by conflating question of whether there was evidence raising provocation with question of whether applicant should have been acquitted of murder on account of provocation –Whether there was evidence before jury which might reasonably have led jury to consider provocation established.
Documents*
14/08/2020 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne video-connect to Adelaide)
27/08/2020 Notice of appeal
02/10/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
02/10/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
30/10/2020 Written submissions (Respondent)
20/11/2020 Reply
09/12/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
(Including pronouncement of orders)
09/12/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
09/12/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)