AZC20 v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Ors
Case No.
M84 & M85/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
05/04/2022 Federal Court of Australia (Jagot, Mortimer & Abraham JJ)
Catchwords
Immigration – Detention – Regional processing – Where appellant in immigration detention since 15 July 2013 – Where appellant required to be taken to regional processing country as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198AD of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where primary judge found it reasonably practicable to take appellant to regional processing country no later than end of September 2013 and, consequently, there had been "extensive" and "unwarranted delay" in removing appellant – Where primary judge made order compelling end of appellant's detention by causing appellant to be taken from Australia under s 196 of Migration Act ("mandamus order") – Where primary judge ordered appellant be detained in home only for so long as it took for appellant to be taken to regional processing country in accordance with mandamus order ("order 3") – Where order 3 suspended, coming into effect only if, after 14 days, respondents failed to take appellant to regional processing country – Where, hours before order 3 due to come into effect, only available regional processing country rejected appellant and Minister exercised personal, non-compellable power under s 198AE of Migration Act to disapply s 198AD to appellant – Where appellant remains in detention centre – Where Full Court granted leave to appeal from orders 3-5 of primary judge's orders – Whether order 3 satisfies temporal and/or purposive element of para (a) of definition of "immigration detention" in s 5 of Migration Act, whereby immigration detention means being in company of, and restrained by, an officer or another prescribed person.
Constitutional law – Chapter III – Courts and judges – Appeal from interlocutory order – Where s 24(1A) of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) requires leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment – Where ss 22 and 23 respectively confer power on Court to grant all remedies to which any party appears entitled and power to issue writs of such kinds as Court considers appropriate – Whether there "matter" within meaning of Chapter III of Constitution – Whether Full Court erred in granting leave to appeal from order 3 – Whether, in circumstances order 3 not come into execution, Full Court erred in granting leave without considering "substantial injustice" test.
Documents*
11/11/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video-connection)
25/11/2022 Notices of appeal
13/01/2023 Written submissions (Appellant - joint for both matters)
13/01/2023 Chronology (Appellant - joint for both matters)
10/02/2023 Written submissions (Respondents - joint for both matters)
03/03/2023 Reply (Appellant - joint for both matters)
11/05/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/05/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant - joint for both matters)
11/05/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondents - joint for both matters)
06/09/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: KINGDOM OF SPAIN V INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LUXEMBOURG S.À.R.L. & ANOR
Date: 09 November 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 2h 04m
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.
The King v. Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd formerly known as Sinclair Knight Merz
Case No.
S148/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
11/07/2022 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Bell CJ, Walton & Davies JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Sentencing – Penalty – Bribery of foreign official – Meaning of "benefit" – Where respondent pleaded guilty to offence of conspiring to cause offer of provision benefits to be made to other persons not legitimately due to those persons, with intention of influencing foreign public officials in order to obtain or retain business, contrary to ss 11.5 and 70.2 of Criminal Code – Where maximum penalty determined by s 70.2(5) and provides: offence punishable by fine not more than greatest of: (1) 100,000 penalty units; (2) where court can determine value of benefit body corporate obtained and that is reasonably attributable to conduct constituting offence—3 times value that benefit; and (3) where court cannot determine value of benefit—10% of annual turnover of body corporate – Where "benefit" obtained by respondent certain project contracts – Whether maximum penalty under second limb of s 70.2(5) calculated on basis that value of benefit of contract is: (1) contract price; or (2) contract price less (untainted) costs to offender of performing it.
Documents*
10/11/2022 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
24/11/2022 Notice of appeal
12/01/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
12/01/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
09/02/2023 Written submissions (Respondent)
02/03/2023 Reply
12/04/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/04/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
12/04/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
02/08/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Lang v. The Queen
Case No.
B57/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
08/03/2022 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (McMurdo and Mullins JJA, Brown J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Unreasonable verdict – Appeal against murder conviction – Where deceased died from knife wound to abdomen – Where hypothesis raised that deceased had committed suicide – Where pathologist expressed opinion that deceased's wound more likely to have been caused by second person than to have been self-inflicted – Whether guilty verdict unreasonable as, on whole of evidence, there reasonable possibility deceased committed suicide – Whether pathologist's opinion inadmissible because not an opinion based on expert knowledge – Lies – Consciousness of guilt – Whether alleged lie capable of overcoming improbabilities in Crown case.
Documents*
11/11/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
23/11/2022 Notice of appeal
13/01/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
13/01/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
10/02/2023 Written submissions (Respondent)
03/03/2023 Reply
12/05/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/05/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
12/05/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
11/10/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: UNIONS NSW & ORS V STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Date: 17 November 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 1h 44m
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.