Graham v. The Queen
Case No.
B14/2016
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
24/07/2015 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Morrison JA, Atkinson J, Applegarth J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – misdirection and non-direction – effect of misdirection or non?direction – where the appellant was convicted after a trial of attempted murder – where the defence of self - defence was raised at trial under ss 271(1), 271(2) and 272(1) of the Criminal Code – where the trial judge gave detailed directions to the jury about each form of self-defence – where the trial judge provided further directions to the jury at their request – where no redirection was sought at trial – whether the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury as to the defence of self-defence under ss 271(1), 271(2) and 272(1) of the Criminal Code.
Documents
11/03/2016 Hearing (SLA, Brisbane)
29/03/2016 Notice of appeal
15/04/2016 Written submissions (Appellant)
15/04/2016 Chronology (Appellant)
06/05/2016 Written submissions (Respondent)
20/05/2016 Reply
14/06/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
20/07/2016 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Day v. Australian Electoral Officer for the State of South Australia & Anor
Case No.
S77/2016
Related matter
S109/2016 - Madden & Ors v. Australian Electoral Officer for the State of Tasmania & Ors
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitution – election of Senators – ss 9 and 7 – where constitution requires uniform method for the election of Senators – whether Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)as amended by Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Act 2016 (Cth) provides for one method for the election of Senators– whether allowing a person to vote for a party is contrary to the requirement for a Senator to be directly chosen by the people – whether the use of a party logo discriminates against independent candidates – whether the method to elect Senators under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)disenfranchises voters – whether amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) are contrary to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of political communication – whether amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) are compatible with the constitutionally prescribed system of representative government.
Documents
22/03/2016 Application for an order to show cause
23/03/2016 Submitting appearance (First Defendant)
24/03/2016 Hearing (Single Justice, Perth v/link Sydney)
05/04/2016 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
12/04/2016 Written submissions (Second Defendant)
15/04/2016 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by v/link Sydney)
26/04/2016 Reply
02/05/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
03/05/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/05/2016 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Murphy & Anor v. Electoral Commissioner & Anor
Case No.
M247/2015
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Legislative power – Franchise – Constitutional limitations upon power of Parliament to regulate exercise of entitlement to enrol to vote – Date for close of Electoral Rolls in Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) – Where Act suspends the enrolment or transfer of enrolment of electors in the period between the close of the Rolls and the close of the poll – Whether denial of enrolment effected by Act contravenes constitutional requirement that representatives be "directly chosen by the people" – Whether amendments operated as disqualification from entitlement to vote and, if so, whether disqualification for substantial reason – Relevance of Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) 233 CLR 162 – Relevance of Rowe v Electoral Commissioner (2010) 243 CLR 1.
Documents*
27/11/2015 Application for an order to show cause
27/11/2015 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)
16/02/2016 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
15/03/2016 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
18/03/2016 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
24/03/2016 Special case stated
24/03/2016 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
11/04/2016 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
11/04/2016 Chronology
26/04/2016 Written submissions (Second Defendant)
26/04/2016 Submitting appearance (First Defendant)
26/04/2016 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
04/05/2016 Reply
11/05/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/05/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
05/09/2016 Reasons for judgment
Sio v. The Queen
Case No.
S83/2016 and S241/2015
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
31/03/2015 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Leeming JA, Johnson J, Schmidt J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – conviction appeal – armed robbery – joint criminal enterprise – unreasonable verdict – where appellant was acquitted of constructive murder based on the appellant’s participation in a joint criminal enterprise to commit armed robbery – where appellant was convicted of armed robbery with wounding – whether appellant’s conviction on alternative count is inconsistent with acquittal on principle count.
Criminal law – evidence – hearsay rule – accomplice – made admission against interest in police interview – accomplice not available - whether the trial judge was required to take into account the “demonstrable unreliability” of individual representations to determine whether interview was “made in circumstance that made it likely the representation was reliable”.
Documents
11/03/2016 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
23/03/2016 Notice of appeal
12/04/2016 Written submissions (Appellant/Applicant)
12/04/2016 Chronology (Appellant/Applicant)
03/05/2016 Amended written submissions (Appellant/Applicant)
06/05/2016 Written submissions (Respondent)
20/05/2016 Reply
15/06/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
24/08/2016 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor v. SZSSJ & Anor
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Ors v. SZTZI
Case Nos.
S75/2016; S76/2016
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
25/09/2015 Federal Court of Australia (Rares J, Perram J, Griffiths J)
Catchwords
Migration – procedural fairness – whether the processes adopted by the Department for considering consequences of release of personal information for protection visa applicant in immigration detention procedurally fair – whether the Full Court erred in finding that s 197C of the Migration Act 1958 does not apply because the respondent had an accrued right not to be removed from Australia under s 198 until a procedurally fair assessment of his/her non-refoulement claims was conducted – whether Federal Circuit Court has jurisdiction to determine the claims – whether the rules of procedural fairness apply to conduct preparatory to the Minister’s dispensing powers under s 48B, 195A and 417 – whether the conduct of officers of the Department are capable of generating an obligation of procedural fairness in circumstances in which the rules of procedural fairness would not otherwise apply.
Documents
11/03/2016 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
21/03/2016 Notice of appeal – SZSSJ
21/03/2016 Notice of appeal – SZTZI
15/04/2016 Written submissions – SZSSJ & SZTZI (Appellants)
15/04/2016 Chronology (Appellants) – SZSSJ (Appellants)
15/04/2016 Chronology (Appellants) – SZTZI (Appellants)
05/05/2016 Written submissions – SZSSJ (First Respondent)
06/05/2016 Written submissions – SZTZI (Respondent)
19/05/2016 Reply – SZSSJ
20/05/2016 Reply – SZTZI
07/06/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
27/07/2016 Judgment (Judgment summary)