Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Masson v. Parsons & Ors
Date: 17 April 2019
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 48m
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.
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Masson v. Parsons & Ors
Date: 16 April 2019
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 5h 17m
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.
Palmer & Ors v. Australian Electoral Commission & Ors
Case No.
B19/2019
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Federal election – Where each plaintiff has been endorsed by United Australia Party as a candidate in House of Representatives or Senate for purpose of 2019 federal election – Whether the exercise by any/all defendants of their powers under Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) is constrained by a statutory limitation preventing publication or release to a nationwide audience, at a time when any poll remains open, of identity of two candidates selected by Commission for each Electoral Division or of results of indicative two-candidate-preferred count – Whether there is a constitutional limitation to similar effect by reason of mandate for direct and popular choice contained in ss 7 and 24 of Constitution (Cth).
Documents*
02/04/2019 Application for constitutional or other writ
02/04/2019 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiffs)
05/04/2019 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Canberra and Sydney)
15/04/2019 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
24/04/2019 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Sydney)
24/04/2019 Amended Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
24/04/2019 Submitting appearance (First to Tenth Defendants)
26/04/2019 Annotated Submissions of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (S P Donaghue QC, Intervening)
02/05/2019 Amended Annotated Submissions of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (S P Donaghue QC, Intervening)
02/05/2019 Reply
02/05/2019 Further Amended Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
06/05/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/05/2019 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiffs)
06/05/2019 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
07/05/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
(Pronouncement of orders included)
09/05/2019 Joint submissions concerning costs (Defendants and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
14/08/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Kalimuthu & Anor v. Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
Case No.
P17/2019
Related matter
S110/2019 – Lordianto & Anor v. Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
30/10/2018 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) (Buss P, Murphy JA, Beech JA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Proceeds of crime – Where large number of deposits were made into bank accounts in amounts of less than $10,000 – Whether each Court of Appeal misconstrued “third party” in s 330(4)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) to exclude person who acquires property at time it becomes proceeds or an instrument of an offence – Whether each Court of Appeal wrongly interpreted term “sufficient consideration” in ss 330(4)(a) and 338 as requiring connection between third party acquirer of property and person from whom property passed – Whether each Court of Appeal erred in interpreting and applying “circumstances that would not arouse a reasonable suspicion, that the property was proceeds of an offence or an instrument of an offence” in s 330(4)(a).
Documents*
22/03/2019 Hearing (SLA, Sydney v/link Perth)
04/04/2019 Notice of appeal
10/05/2019 Written submissions (Appellants)
10/05/2019 Chronology (Appellants)
05/06/2019 Written submissions (Respondent)
28/06/2019 Reply
07/08/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
07/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
08/08/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
08/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
13/11/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Lordianto & Anor v. Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
Case No.
S110/2019
Related matter
P17/2019 – Kalimuthu & Anor v. Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
11/09/2018 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Beazley P, Payne JA, McColl JA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Proceeds of crime – Where large number of deposits were made into bank accounts in amounts of less than $10,000 – Whether each Court of Appeal misconstrued “third party” in s 330(4)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) to exclude person who acquires property at time it becomes proceeds or an instrument of an offence – Whether each Court of Appeal wrongly interpreted term “sufficient consideration” in ss 330(4)(a) and 338 as requiring connection between third party acquirer of property and person from whom property passed – Whether each Court of Appeal erred in interpreting and applying “circumstances that would not arouse a reasonable suspicion, that the property was proceeds of an offence or an instrument of an offence” in s 330(4)(a).
Documents*
22/03/2019 Hearing (SLA, Sydney v/link Perth)
02/04/2019 Notice of appeal
08/05/2019 Written submissions (Appellants)
08/05/2019 Chronology (Appellants)
05/06/2019 Written submissions (Respondent)
24/06/2019 Reply
07/08/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
07/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
08/08/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
08/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
13/11/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)