Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION V CARNE
Date: 06 June 2023
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 26m
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.
NZYQ v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor
Case No.
Case no S28/2023
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of the Commonwealth – Unlawful non-citizen in immigration detention – No real prospect of removal from Australia in reasonably foreseeable future – Whether provision for indefinite detention without judicial order infringes Chapter III of the Constitution – Whether detention involves an exercise of judicial power of the Commonwealth by the Executive – Whether detention is for a non-punitive purpose – Whether Court should overrule or distinguish Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562.
Immigration – Unlawful non-citizens – Detention pending removal from Australia – No real prospect of removal from Australia in reasonably foreseeable future – Whether detention lawful under Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Whether detention is temporally limited by purpose of removal – Whether requirement to remove as soon as reasonably practicable implies time limit on detention – Whether position considered in Al-Kateb altered since decision in Commonwealth v AJL20 (2021) 273 CLR 43 because of introduction of s 197C(3) of Migration Act.
Statutes – Acts of Parliament – Construction and interpretation – Presumption of legislative intention not to invade personal common law rights.
Documents*
05/04/2023 Application for Constitutional or other writ
02/06/2023 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video-connection)
06/06/2023 Order referring special case to the Full Court
01/09/2023 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
01/09/2023 Chronology (Plaintiff)
15/09/2023 Written submissions (Australian Human Rights Commission, seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae)
15/09/2023 Written submissions (Human Rights Law Centre and Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, seeking leave to be heard as amici curiae)
03/10/2023 Written submissions (Defendants)
24/10/2023 Reply
07/11/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
07/11/2023 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)
07/11/2023 Outline of oral argument (Defendants)
07/11/2023 Outline of oral argument (Australian Human Rights Commission, appearing as amicus curiae)
07/11/2023 Outline of oral argument (Human Rights Law Centre and Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, appearing as amici curiae)
08/11/2023 Hearing (including pronouncement of orders) (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
28/11/2023 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
Ismail v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
Case No.
Case no M20/2023
Case Information
Catchwords
Immigration – Refugees – Application for Return (Residence) (Class BB) (Subclass 155) visa ("Return visa") – Character test – Family violence – Where delegate of Minister refused application for Return visa, finding plaintiff did not pass character test on basis of his substantial criminal record, which included domestic violence offences – Where, having regard to Direction No. 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA ("Direction 90"), delegate decided not to exercise power to grant plaintiff visa – Where plaintiff seeks orders for certiorari and mandamus, and consequential declarations – Whether delegate made jurisdictional error: (1) by failing to make inquiry as to critical fact, and/or failing to comply with para 8.3 of Direction 90, requiring decision-maker to make determination as to best interests of minor children; (2) in interpreting and/or applying para 8.2 of Direction 90 by giving weight to acts of family violence committed by plaintiff where weight also given to consideration other paras of Direction 90; (3) by interpreting and/or applying para 8.2 of Direction 90 as if it permitted weight to be given to family violence unconnected to protection and/or expectations of Australian community.
Administrative law – Judicial review – Jurisdictional error – Direction 90 made under s 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
Documents*
28/03/2023 Application for constitutional or other writ
05/06/2023 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video-connection)
05/06/2023 Order referring matter to the Full Court
27/06/2023 Consent order varying timetable
28/06/2023 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
28/06/2023 Chronology (Plaintiff)
28/07/2023 Written submissions (Defendant)
14/08/2023 Reply
06/09/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/09/2023 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)
06/09/2023 Outline of oral argument (Defendant)
07/02/2024 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
Chief Executive Officer, Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority v. Director of National Parks & Anor
Case No.
Case no D3/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
30/09/2022 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Grant CJ, Southwood and Barr JJ)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Territories – Territory crown – Crown immunity – Where s 34(1) of Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 (NT) ("Sacred Sites Act") prescribes offence and penalty for carrying out work on sacred site – Where Director of National Parks arranged for contractor to perform work on walking track at Gunlom Falls, in Kakadu National Park in Northern Territory – Where track works in area amounting to "sacred site" – Where Director is corporation sole with perpetual succession established by s 15 of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 (Cth) and continued in existence as body corporate by s 514A of Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) – Whether s 34(1) of Sacred Sites Act applies to Director.
Statutory interpretation – Statutory presumption – Presumption against imposition of criminal liability on executive – Where presumption considered in Cain v Doyle (1946) 72 CLR 409 – Proper approach to scope of presumption in Cain v Doyle – Whether presumption in Cain v Doyle applies to statutory corporations – Whether Sacred Sites Act expresses intention to apply to persons or bodies corporate associated with Commonwealth.
Documents*
19/05/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video-connection)
02/06/2023 Notice of appeal
12/07/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
12/07/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
26/07/2023 Written submissions (Northern Land Council and Others, intervening)
14/08/2023 Written submissions (Second Respondent)
28/08/2023 Reply
12/12/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/12/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
12/12/2023 Outline of oral argument (Second Respondent)
12/12/2023 Outline of oral argument (Northern Land Council and Others, intervening)
13/12/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
08/05/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
The King v. Rohan (a pseudonym)
Case No.
Case no M33/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
4 October 2022 Supreme Court of Victoria (Emerton P, Kyrou and Forrest JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Liability – Primary – Derivative – Where s 323(1)(c) of Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) provides that person is involved in commission of offence if person enters into agreement, arrangement or understanding with another person to commit offence – Where respondent jointly charged with co-offenders – Where respondent and co-offenders each found guilty by jury verdict, relevantly, of two charges of supplying drug of dependence to child (charges 1 and 2) (in relation to two complainants) and seven charges of sexual penetration of child under 12 (including charges 3, 7, 8 and 9) (in relation to one complainant) – Where Court of Appeal held respondent suffered substantial miscarriage of justice on charges 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9, because jury not directed that it needed to be satisfied to criminal standard that respondent knew relevant complainants were under statutory prescribed age when respondent agreed with co-offenders that he would engage in criminal act – Whether, on proper construction, implied into s 323(1)(c) should be words "intentionally" and "knowing or believing facts that make proposed conduct offence".
Documents*
19/05/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video-connection)
02/06/2023 Notice of appeal
07/07/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
07/07/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
04/08/2023 Written submissions (Respondent)
21/08/2023 Reply
12/10/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/10/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
12/10/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
14/02/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)