GBF v. The Queen
Case No.
B18/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
01/02/2019 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Morrison JA, Philippides JA and Boddice J)
Catchwords
Criminal law –Right to silence –Presumption of innocence –Where trial judge said to jury that lack of sworn evidence from appellant contradicting complainant’s evidence might “make it easier” to assess complainant’s credibility –Where appellant subsequently convicted –Where Queensland Court of Appeal held that trial judge’s statement was error but did not occasion miscarriage of justice where no redirection sought and where other contrary directions given –Whether statement to jury that undermines right to silence and presumption of innocence can be held to not amount to miscarriage of justice.
Documents
15/04/2020 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
27/04/2020 Notice of appeal
03/06/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
03/06/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
02/07/2020 Written submissions (Respondent)
22/07/2020 Reply
10/09/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
10/09/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
10/09/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
04/11/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Minister for Home Affairs & Ors v. DLZ18 & Anor
Minister for Home Affairs & Anor v. Marie Theresa Arthur as Litigation Representative for BXD18
Minister for Home Affairs & Anor v. FRX17 as litigation representative for FRM17
Minister for Home Affairs & Anor v. DJA18 as litigation representative for DIZ18
Case Nos.
M27/2020, M28/2020, M29/2020 & M30/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
28/08/2019 Federal Court of Australia (Kenny, Robertson & Griffiths JJ)
Catchwords
Migration law – Regional processing – Jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia – Where respondents commenced proceedings against Commonwealth – Where s 494AB of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) barred certain proceedings relating to “transitory persons” from being instituted or continued in any court other than High Court – Whether proceedings were, for purposes of s 494AB(1)(ca), proceedings “relating to the performance or exercise of a function” under s 198AHA(2) in relation to a transitory person – Whether proceedings were, for purposes of s 494AB(1)(a), proceedings relating to exercise of powers under s 198B of Act – Whether proceedings were, for purposes of s 494AB(1)(d), proceedings relating to removal of a transitory person from Australia under the Act.
Documents
20/03/2020 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Melbourne)
03/04/2020 Notice of appeal (4 separate notices filed)
11/05/2020 Amended written submissions (Appellant - DLZ18)
08/05/2020 Chronology (Appellant - DLZ18)
11/05/2020 Amended written submissions (Appellant - BXD18)
08/05/2020 Chronology (Appellant - BXD18)
11/05/2020 Amended written submissions (Appellant - FRX17)
08/05/2020 Chronology (Appellant - FRX17)
11/05/2020 Amended written submissions (Appellant - DJA18)
08/05/2020 Chronology (Appellant - DJA18)
05/06/2020 Written submissions (Respondents - DLZ18)
05/06/2020 Written submissions (Respondents - BXD18)
05/06/2020 Written submissions (Respondents - FRX17)
05/06/2020 Written submissions (Respondents - DJA18)
26/06/2020 Reply (Appellant - DLZ18)
26/06/2020 Reply (Appellant - BXD18)
26/06/2020 Reply (Appellant - FRX17)
26/06/2020 Reply (Appellant - DJA18)
01/09/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
01/09/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellants - joint)
01/09/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondent - DLZ18)
01/09/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondents - BXD18 and DJA18)
02/12/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)
The Queen v. Abdirahman-Khalif
Case No.
A5/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
31/10/2019 Supreme Court of South Australia (Kourakis CJ, Kelly and Parker JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Terrorism – Where respondent charged with offence of membership of terrorist organisation contrary to s 102.3(1) of Criminal Code (Cth) – Where respondent convicted at trial – Where respondent successfully appealed against conviction – Whether prosecution must adduce evidence of terrorist organisation’s admission practices in order to prove that accused person has taken steps to become member of that organisation – Whether majority of CCA erred in construing “organisation” for purposes of Div 102 of Criminal Code (Cth).
Documents
20/03/2020 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Adelaide)
03/04/2020 Notice of appeal
13/05/2020 Amended Written submissions (Appellant)
08/05/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
05/06/2020 Written submissions (Respondent)
26/06/2020 Reply
25/08/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
28/08/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
03/09/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
03/09/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
03/09/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
14/10/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Roy v. O’Neill
Case No.
D2/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
04/09/2019 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Southwood ACJ, Kelly J and Riley AJ)
Catchwords
Evidence – Admissibility of evidence obtained in course of “pro-active” policing of compliance with Domestic Violence Order – Whether common law recognises implied license permitting all people, including police, to attend upon unobstructed private property as far as front door and to knock on front door for purpose of lawful communication, such licence only being excluded where attendee otherwise has unlawful purpose – How to ascertain existence and scope of any implied licence at common law in favour of person who attends on unobstructed private property only so far as front door – Nature of relationship between common law doctrines of implied licence and police powers to prevent breach of peace.
Documents
20/03/2020 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
03/04/2020 Notice of appeal
08/05/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/05/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
05/06/2020 Written submissions (Respondent)
29/06/2020 Reply
08/09/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
08/09/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
08/09/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
09/12/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Applicant S270/2019 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
Case No.
S47/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
07/08/2019 Federal Court of Australia (Greenwood, Charlesworth & O’Callaghan JJ)
Catchwords
Migration law – Non-refoulement – Where appellant’s visa was cancelled on character grounds pursuant to s 501(3A) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where appellant sought to have cancellation decision revoked pursuant to s 501CA(4) of Act – Whether Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, when determining whether to exercise power under s 501CA(4) to revoke decision to cancel visa made pursuant to s 501(3A), must consider whether person seeking revocation is owed non-refoulement obligations by Australia.
Documents
20/03/2020 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
01/04/2020 Notice of appeal
08/05/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
11/05/2020 Written submissions (amended) (Appellant)
10/06/2020 Written submissions (amended) (Respondent)
26/06/2020 Reply
05/08/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
05/08/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
05/08/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
14/08/2020 Written submissions (supplementary) (Appellant)
14/08/2020 Written submissions (supplementary) (Respondent)
09/09/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)