Lordianto & Anor v. Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police

Case No.

S110/2019

Related matter

P17/2019 – Kalimuthu & Anor v. Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

11/09/2018 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Beazley P, Payne JA, McColl JA)

[2018] NSWCA 199

Catchwords

Criminal law – Proceeds of crime – Where large number of deposits were made into bank accounts in amounts of less than $10,000 – Whether each Court of Appeal misconstrued “third party” in s 330(4)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) to exclude person who acquires property at time it becomes proceeds or an instrument of an offence – Whether each Court of Appeal wrongly interpreted term “sufficient consideration” in ss 330(4)(a) and 338 as requiring connection between third party acquirer of property and person from whom property passed – Whether each Court of Appeal erred in interpreting and applying “circumstances that would not arouse a reasonable suspicion, that the property was proceeds of an offence or an instrument of an offence” in s 330(4)(a).

Documents*

22/03/2019 Hearing (SLA, Sydney v/link Perth)

02/04/2019 Notice of appeal

08/05/2019 Written submissions (Appellants)

08/05/2019 Chronology (Appellants)

05/06/2019 Written submissions (Respondent)

24/06/2019 Reply

07/08/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

07/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)

08/08/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

08/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)

13/11/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)

Minogue v. State of Victoria

Case No.

M162/2018

Case Information

Catchwords

Constitutional law – Parole – Where plaintiff convicted of murder of police officer – Where plaintiff sentenced to life imprisonment – Where non-parole period expired on 30 September 2016 – Where Corrections Amendment (Parole) Act 2018 (Vic) inserted new ss 74AAA, 74AB and 127A into Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) – Whether s 74AAA applies to plaintiff or to consideration of grant of parole to him – Whether ss 74AB and (if applicable) 74AAA substantively amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within meaning of Art 7 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Whether provision(s) invalid as unconstitutional and/or beyond power of Victorian Parliament.

Short particulars

Documents

23/10/2018 Writ of summons

13/12/2018 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)

22/01/2019 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)

14/02/2019 Special Case Stated

27/02/2019 Written submissions (Plaintiff)

08/03/2019 Written submissions (International Commission of Jurists (Victoria) seeking leave to intervene)

26/03/2019 Written submissions (Defendant)

02/04/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)

02/04/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)

02/04/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)

05/04/2019 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)

23/04/2019 Reply

18/06/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

18/06/2019 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)

18/06/2019 Outline of oral argument (Defendant)

18/06/2019 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)

18/06/2019 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)

18/06/2019 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)

11/09/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)

Fennell v. The Queen

Case No.

B20/2019

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

21/07/2017 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Gotterson & Philippides JJA, Byrne SJA)

[2017] QCA 154

Catchwords

Criminal law – Where appellant convicted by jury of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment – Where appellant contended on appeal that there was reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence open on evidence – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to evidence, in part because it made significant errors of fact.

Short particulars

Documents*

22/03/2019 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne v/link Brisbane)

03/04/2019 Notice of appeal

10/05/2019 Written submissions (Appellant)

10/05/2019 Chronology (Appellant)

07/06/2019 Written submissions (Respondent)

28/06/2019 Reply

11/09/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
                 (Pronouncement of orders included)

11/09/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)

11/09/2019 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)

06/11/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)

Commissioner of Taxation v. Sharpcan Pty Ltd

Case No.

M52/2019

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

27/09/2018 Federal Court of Australia (Greenwood ACJ, McKerracher & Thawley JJ)

[2018] FCAFC 163

Catchwords

Taxation – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal held that outgoing of $600,300 incurred by the trustee of the Daylesford Royal Hotel Trust in the year ended 30 June 2010 for acquisition of 18 gaming machine entitlements under Gambling Regulation Act 2003 (Vic) was on revenue account and therefore deductible under s 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) – Whether Full Court (by majority) erred in upholding the decision of Tribunal instead of finding that outgoing was “of capital, or of a capital nature” – Whether Full Court erred in holding that if it was outgoing of capital or of a capital nature, it was expenditure to which s 40-880(6) of Income Tax Assessment Act applied and accordingly a deduction was allowable to trustee in respect of expenditure under s 40-880(2).

Documents*

20/03/2019 Determination (SLA, Canberra)

03/04/2019 Notice of appeal

08/05/2019 Written submissions (Appellant)

08/05/2019 Chronology (Appellant)

05/06/2019 Written submissions (Respondent)

07/06/2019 Amended written submissions (Respondent)

26/06/2019 Reply

09/08/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

09/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)

09/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)

16/10/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)

Taylor v. Attorney-General of the Commonwealth

Case No.

M36/2018

Case Information

Catchwords

Administrative law – Judicial review – Where plaintiff lodged charge-sheet and summons at Magistrates’ Court against Aung Sun Suu Kyi (serving Foreign Minister of Myanmar) for a crime against humanity (deportation or forcible transfer of population) contrary to ss 268.11 and 268.115 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – Where plaintiff sought defendant’s consent under s 268.121 of the Criminal Code Act to commence proceedings – Where consent refused – Whether the decision to refuse consent reviewable – Whether defendant misunderstood the law and committed jurisdictional error in refusing consent – Whether Aung Sun Suu Kyi immune from prosecution in Australia under customary international law – Whether defendant failed to afford plaintiff procedural fairness.

Short particulars

Documents*

23/03/2018 Application for an order to show cause

03/10/2018 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)

19/11/2018 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)

26/11/2018 Special case stated

14/01/2019 Written submissions (Plaintiff)

14/01/2019 Chronology (Plaintiff)

14/01/2019 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)

18/02/2019 Written submissions (Defendant)

07/03/2019 Reply (Plaintiff)

08/03/2019 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Sydney)

21/05/2019 Annotated submissions (Defendant)

05/06/2019 Annotated reply (Plaintiff)

07/06/2019 Amended annotated submissions (Plaintiff)

19/06/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
                      (Pronouncement of orders included)

19/06/2019 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)

11/09/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)

Page 117 of 281