Plaintiff M79/2012 v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Case No.
M79/2012
Case Information
Catchwords
Citizenship and Migration – Refugees – Plaintiff 'offshore entry person' – Plaintiff made a request for a refugee status assessment – Delegate determined that Plaintiff did not meet the definition of 'refugee' in Art 1A of the Refugees Convention – Plaintiff applied for independent merits review and subsequently judicial review – Judicial review decision remains reserved – Minister intervened under s 195A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and granted the Plaintiff a temporary safe haven visa permitting a stay of seven days and a bridging E visa permitting a stay of six months – Grant of temporary safe haven visa bars plaintiff's application for protection visa under s 91L of the Migration Act – Whether temporary safe heaven visa validly granted – Whether plaintiff's application for a protection visa valid.
Documents
22/08/2012 Application for an order to show cause
27/09/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
30/10/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
30/10/2012 Special case stated
11/12/2012 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
11/12/2012 Chronology (Plaintiff)
11/01/2013 Written submissions (Defendant)
21/01/2013 Reply
08/02/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
29/05/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v. Li and Anor
Case No.
B68/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
24/05/2012 Federal Court of Australia (Greenwood J, Collier J, Logan J)
Catchwords
Citizenship and Migration – Immigration – Migration Review Tribunal ('MRT') – Procedural fairness – Right to be heard – Hearings – Respondent unsuccessfully applied for a 'Skilled Independent Overseas Student (Residence) (Class DD) Visa' – Respondent requested MRT to forbear from making review decision until final outcome of a second skills assessment by Trades Recognition Australia – Respondent sought to address procedural errors by Trades Recognition Australia – MRT made decision without second assessment – Whether MRT’s refusal to adjourn denied applicant procedural fairness – Whether application doomed to failure – Whether ss 353 and 357A(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) impose requirements capable of supporting substantive grounds of review for jurisdictional error – Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 348, 353, 357A, 360.
Administrative law – Wednesbury unreasonableness – Proper test for unreasonableness in relation to adjournment – Whether failure to adjourn unreasonable.
Documents
16/11/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
30/11/2012 Notice of appeal
07/12/2012 Submitting appearance (Second Respondent)
21/12/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
21/12/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
22/01/2013 Written submissions (First Respondent)
25/01/2013 Reply
07/02/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
08/05/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
SZOQQ v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Anor
Case No.
S334/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/03/2012 Federal Court of Australia (Flick J, Jagot J, Barker J)
Catchwords
Citizenship and Migration – Refugees – Refoulement – Applicant an Indonesian national convicted of serious criminal offences in Australia – Applicant found to have real chance of being persecuted if returned – Applicant was excluded by Art 33(2) of the Refugees Convention because of serious criminal convictions and threat posed to Australian community – Whether Minister required to take into account the likely consequence of returning a non-citizen to his or her home country when determining if Article 33(2) of the Refugees Convention applies to deny the benefit of non-refoulement – Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951, Arts 33(1), 33(2) – Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36 & 65.
Documents
16/11/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
29/11/2012 Notice of appeal
21/12/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
21/12/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
18/01/2013 Written submissions (Respondents)
25/01/2013 Reply
12/03/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
10/04/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd and Ors v. Global Gaming Supplies Pty Ltd and Ors
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd and Ors v. Allam and Ors
Case Nos.
S168/2012; S169/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
25/05/2012 Federal Court of Australia (Bennett, Middleton and Yates JJ)
21/03/2012 Federal Court of Australia (Bennett, Middleton and Yates JJ)
[2012] FCAFC 75, [2012] FCAFC 34
Catchwords
Evidence – Tendency evidence – Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 97 – Applicants engaged in business of manufacturing and selling electronic gaming machines – Applicants alleged that the respondents infringed copyright under s 38 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) by selling counterfeited gaming machines – Infringement of copyright in circumstances where respondent 'knew, or ought reasonably to have known, the making of the article constituted an infringement of copyright' – Email chain that demonstrated that the respondents had a tendency to engage in infringing transactions – Whether emails inadmissible tendency evidence – Whether the limitation on tendency evidence in s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 applies to evidence of a person's awareness or state of mind about that person's own prior activities where the issue is the person's knowledge or reasons to believe under s 38 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
Intellectual Property – Copyright – Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 38 –Infringement – Infringement by dealing – Whether respondents infringed applicants' copyright.
Documents
22/06/2012 Application for special leave to appeal
16/11/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
21/12/2012 Written submissions - S168/2012 (Applicants)
21/12/2012 Chronology - S168/2012
21/12/2012 Written submissions - S169/2012 (Applicants)
21/12/2012 Chronology - S169/2012
01/02/2013 Written submissions (Respondents - S168/2012 and Third to Fifth Respondents - S169/2012)
01/02/2013 Written submissions (First and Sixth Respondents - S169/2012)
01/02/2013 Notice of Contention (First and Sixth Respondents - S169/2012)
22/02/2013 Reply
02/05/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
10/05/2013 Publication of Reasons for Decision (Judgment summary)
Yates v. The Queen
Case No.
P21/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
29/07/1987 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Burt CJ, Brinsden J, Smith J)
No media neutral citation
Catchwords
Criminal law – Sentencing – Detained during the Governor's pleasure – In 1987 Applicant was found guilty of one count of deprivation of liberty and one count of aggravated sexual assault upon a child under the age of 13 years – Applicant sentenced to seven years imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently, followed by an indeterminate sentence imposed under s 662 of the Criminal Code (WA) – Section 662 of the Criminal Code (WA) empowered a court in certain circumstances to sentence a person to be detained during the Governor's pleasure – Whether it was open to sentence the applicant for an indeterminate period having regard to the applicant's antecedents, health and mental condition – Whether s 662 of the Criminal Code can be used for the purpose of manipulating the period of time which an offender must serve on parole following the expiration of a future term.
Documents
20/06/2012 Application for special leave to appeal
16/11/2012 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by v/link to Perth)
21/12/2012 Written submissions (Applicant)
21/12/2012 Chronology
11/01/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
25/01/2013 Reply
13/02/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
14/03/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)