Scam alert – fraudulent email address ‘subpoena@hcourt.gov.au’

The Court is aware of a scam involving the use of a fraudulent email address purporting to be an official High Court email address – ‘subpoena@hcourt.gov.au’ 

This email address is not associated with, authorised by, or operated by the Court. 

Recipients of emails from this account should exercise caution and should not click on links, open attachments or provide personal or financial information. 

SDCV v. Director-General of Security & Anor

Case No. S27/2022
Case information

Lower Court Judgment

09/04/2021 Federal Court of Australia (Rares, Bromwich and Abraham JJ)

[2021] FCAFC 51

Catchwords

Constitutional law – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Ch III of Constitution – Validity of s 46(2) of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act) – Where appellant subject to adverse security assessment (ASA) by Australian Security Intelligence Office (ASIO) – Where appellant sought review of ASA by Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT) – Where s 39A(8) of AAT Act provided ASIO Minister may certify evidence proposed to be adduced or submissions proposed to be made by Director-General of Security are of such nature that disclosure be contrary to public interest – Where s 39B(2)(a) of AAT Actprovided ASIO Minister may certify disclosure of information in certificate, or disclosure of contents of document, would be contrary to public interest – Where ASIO Minister issued certificates under ss 39A(8) and 39B(2)(a) of AAT Act – Where AAT affirmed ASA decision – Where, when appealed to Federal Court, AAT obliged under s 46(1) of AAT Act to send documents before AAT to Court – Where, because certificates in force in respect of certain documents, Federal Court required by s 46(2) of AAT Act to do all things necessary to ensure matter not disclosed to person other than a member of Court – Where Federal Court determined s 46(2) of AAT Act valid and proceeded to determine appeal grounds adversely to appellant while having regard to submissions and evidence to which appellant did not have access by reason of s 46(2) – Whether s 46(2) of AAT Act denies appellant procedural fairness – Whether s 46(2) is invalid by reason of Ch III of Constitution in that it requires Federal Court to act in procedurally unfair manner – Whether decisions in Gypsy Jokers Motorcycle Club Inc v Commissioner of Police (2008) 234 CLR 532;  Assistant Commissioner Pompano v Condon Pty Ltd (2013) 252 CLR 38; or Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 263 CLR 1 should be qualified or overruled.

Documents

21/02/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)

07/03/2022 Notice of appeal

11/04/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)

11/04/2022 Chronology (Appellant)

06/05/2022 Written submissions (First Respondent)

06/05/2022 Written submissions (Second Respondent)

17/05/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)

18/05/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)

18/05/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)

18/05/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)

24/05/2022 Reply

07/06/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

07/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)

07/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)

07/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)

07/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)

08/06/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

08/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)

08/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)

12/10/2022 Judgment (Judgment Summary)