Cases - High Court of Australia

Case S142/2023

MJZP v. Director-General of Security & Anor

Case No.

S142/2023

Case Information

Catchwords

Constitutional law – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Procedural fairness – Where plaintiff company is carriage service provider within meaning of Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) – Where in June 2021 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation ("ASIO") furnished to Minister for Home Affairs adverse security assessment in respect of plaintiff in connection with s 315A of Telecommunications Act – Where plaintiff applied to Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("Tribunal") for review of adverse security assessment – Where Minister made various certifications under Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ("AAT Act") that disclosure of certain documents and evidence contrary to public interest – Where Tribunal provided open reasons to plaintiff and first defendant, and closed reasons only to first defendant – Where plaintiff appealed to Federal Court of Australia – Where s 46(1) of AAT Act requires Tribunal to send to Federal Court all documents before Tribunal in connexion with proceeding, including documents subject to certificates issued by Minister – Where s 46(2) of AAT Act requires Federal Court to ensure matter subject to certificates not disclosed to any person other than member of Federal Court for purposes of appeal – Whether s 46(2) substantially impairs institutional integrity of Federal Court – Whether s 46(2) requires Federal Court to exercise Commonwealth judicial power in manner inconsistent with nature of that power – Whether s 46(2) invalid on basis it infringes Ch III of Constitution.

Documents*

15/11/2023 Writ of Summons

30/11/2023 Submitting appearance (First defendant)

04/06/2024 Order referring special case to the Full Court by consent

20/06/2024 Special case stated

23/08/2024 Written submissions (Plaintiff)

08/10/2024 Written submissions (Second Defendant)

18/10/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales, intervening)

18/10/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania, intervening)

18/10/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland, intervening)

18/10/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia, intervening)

01/11/2024 Reply

12/12/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

12/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)

12/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Second Defendant)

13/12/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

13/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales, intervening)

13/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania, intervening)

13/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland, intervening)

13/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia, intervening)

24/01/2025 Post-hearing written submissions (Second Defendant)

31/01/2025 Post-hearing written submissions (Plaintiff)

11/03/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

11/03/2025 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)

11/03/2025 Outline of oral argument (Second Defendant)

Published in Cases

AV-2024-06-05

Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra

Case: Steven Moore (a pseudonym) v The King

Date: 05 June 2024

Transcript: Hearing

AV time: 2h 45m

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.

Published in Cases AV

Case M44/2024

BIF23 v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

Case No.

Case no M44/2024

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

19/12/2023 Federal Court of Australia (Markovic, Derrington & Anderson JJ)

[2023] FCAFC 201

Catchwords

Immigration – Visas – Cancellation – Notice of cancellation decision – Legal incapacity from acting on notice – Where delegate of Minister cancelled appellant's visa under s 501 (3A) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where s 501CA(3) provided after making decision, Minister must give person written notice that sets out original decision and invite person to make representations to Minister – Where written notice for purposes of s 501CA(3) handed to appellant, who at relevant time in psychiatric unit of Correctional Centre – Where subsequent to notification, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal made order under s 30 of Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic) appointing Public Advocate as guardian of appellant – Where appellant commenced proceeding in Federal Circuit Court seeking judicial review of Minister's decision to give 501CA(3) notice – Where primary judge and Full Court dismissed application and appeal – Whether Full Court erred failing to find not "practicable" within meaning of s 501CA(3) for Minister's delegate to give appellant notice in circumstances where appellant lacked decision-making capacity – Whether, alternatively, Full Court erred failing to find further notice could be issued to appellant, after guardian appointed for him under Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic) – Whether legally unreasonable for Minister not to give further notice in circumstances where appellant now able to make representations about revocation of cancellation of his visa by his guardian.

Documents*

09/05/2024 Determination

23/05/2024 Notice of appeal

27/06/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)

27/06/2024 Chronology (Appellant)

25/07/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)

15/08/2024 Reply

03/09/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Melbourne)

03/09/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)

03/09/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)

04/12/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)

Published in Cases

Case S27/2024

YBFZ v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor

Case No.

Case no S27/2024

Case Information

Catchwords

Constitutional law – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Monitoring and curfew powers – Where plaintiff sentenced to aggregate term of imprisonment of 18 months and his permanent refugee visa cancelled – Where after release from prison, plaintiff detained under s 189 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where plaintiff released from detention and granted various visas, each with curfew condition and electronic monitoring condition imposed – Whether curfew and monitoring powers under cl 070.612A(1) of Sch 2 of Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), together or alone, "punitive" and therefore contrary to Ch III of Constitution

Documents

22/02/2024 Writ of Summons

22/05/2024 Special Case Stated

23/05/2024 Order referring special case to the Full Court by consent

27/05/2024 Written submissions (Plaintiff)

14/06/2024 Written submissions (Defendants)

28/06/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening)

12/07/2024 Reply

06/08/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Darwin)

06/08/2024 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)

06/08/2024 Outline of oral argument (Defendants)

06/08/2024 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening)

06/11/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)

Published in Cases

Case P21/2024

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Ors v. MZAPC

Case No.

Case no P21/2024

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

18/03/2024 Federal Court of Australia (SC Derrington, Colvin & Jackson JJ)

[2024] FCAFC 34

Catchwords

Immigration – Duty to remove unlawful citizen as soon as reasonably practicable – Personal and non-compellable powers of Minister – Where respondent's visa cancelled in November 2015 – Where respondent in immigration detention and exhausted all rights of review and appeal in relation to his immigration status – Where primary judge made orders restraining appellants from performing duty imposed by s 198(6) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("Act") to remove respondent from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable – Where primary judge concluded following this Court's decision in Davis v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 10, serious question to be tried as to whether officers of Department had, acting beyond power, made assessments of respondent’s circumstances against ministerial guidelines concerning referral of cases to Minister for personal consideration under ss 195A and 417 of Act – Where Full Court majority upheld primary judge's decision – Whether Full Court erred concluding primary judge had power to grant interlocutory injunction restraining respondent’s removal from Australia.

Practice and procedure – Interlocutory injunction restraining removal from Australia – Serious question to be tried.