Plaintiff S138/2012 v. Director General of Security and Ors
Case No.
S138/2012
Case Information
Catchwords
Citizenship and migration – Migration – Refugees – Protection visas – Plaintiff found to be a refugee but refused protection visa due to adverse security assessment by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation – Department relied on public interest criterion 4002 which requires that applicant not be assessed by ASIO to be a risk to security – In Plaintiff M47 v Director-General of Security public interest criterion 4002 found to be beyond power conferred by s 31(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Whether the Secretary made an error of law by relying on public interest criterion 4002
Citizenship and migration – Mandatory detention – Plaintiff held in detention as unlawful non-citizen – No third country currently available to receive plaintiff – Whether ss 189 and 196 of Act authorise plaintiff's detention
Administrative law – Procedural fairness – Adverse security assessment – ASIO interviewed plaintiff – Plaintiff did not meet requirements for protection visa – Plaintiff never informed of the reasons why or nature of apparent risk he poses to security – Whether Director-General failed to accord plaintiff procedural fairness
Constitutional law – Whether ss 189, 196 and 198 of Act are beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth
Documents
28/05/2012 Application for an order to show cause
30/05/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra)
19/11/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
19/02/2013 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
26/02/2013 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)
20/05/2013 Written submissons (Plaintiff)
30/05/2013 Written submissions (Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre, seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae)
04/06/2013 Written submissions (Defendants)
11/06/2013 Reply
13/06/2013 Hearing (Single Justice, Perth v/link Sydney)
18/06/2013 Hearing - Vacated (Full Court, Canberra)
Lee and Anor v. New South Wales Crime Commission
Case No.
S29/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
6/09/2012 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Beazley, McColl, Basten, Macfarlan and Meagher JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Recovery of proceeds of crime – Examination orders – Whether examination would interfere with the administration of justice in criminal proceedings – Whether examination order may be made where criminal charges pending against examinee – Whether procedural protections available to prevent abuse of power – Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), ss 13A, 31D, 63
Constitutional law – Ch III of the Constitution – Separation of judicial powers – Functions incompatible with institutional integrity of State Supreme Court – Validity of s 31D of Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) – Whether requiring a State Supreme Court to make an examination order without regard to the capacity of that order to prejudice the fair trial of the person is incompatible with Ch III
Statutes – Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) ss 13A, 31D, 63 – Examination orders – Whether power to order examination limited by general law principles relating to a fair trial.
Documents
15/02/2013 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
27/02/2013 Notice of appeal
22/03/2013 Written submissions (Appellants)
22/03/2013 Chronology (Appellants)
12/04/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
19/04/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
19/04/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
23/04/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
26/04/2013 Reply
01/05/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
09/10/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Agius v. The Queen
Case No.
S28/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
24/05/2011 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Tobias AJA, Johnson J, Hall J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Conspiracy – In 2001 the Crimes Act 1914 (NSW) s 29D dealing with the offence of conspiracy was repealed and replaced with the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 135 – Whether proof of conspiracy under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) requires evidence of an agreement entered into after the Code began operation on 24 May 2001 – Whether the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) can apply retrospectively to an agreement entered into before 24 May 2001 – Whether physical element of conduct constituted by a conspiracy can be “a state of affairs”.
Documents
15/02/2013 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
27/02/2013 Notice of appeal
26/03/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
22/03/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
05/04/2013 Amended written submissions (Appellant)
12/04/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
26/04/2013 Reply
30/04/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
05/06/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v. Keating
Case No.
M5/2013
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Powers of the Commonwealth Parliament – Social Security Legislation – Retrospective application of offence – Section 66A of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) ('the Administration Act') retrospectively creates duty for applicant to inform Centrelink of income increases – Applicant charged with three counts of obtaining financial advantage contrary to s 135(1) for failing to report increases in her income to Centrelink – Whether s 66A of the Administration Act invalid in so far as it operates retrospectively – Whether the sending or deemed receipt of a notice under s 68 of the Administration Act is sufficient to give rise to a duty under law to perform an action for the purposes of s 4.3(b) of the Criminal Code (Cth).
Documents
14/12/2012 Hearing (Removal, Melbourne)
18/12/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
02/01/2013 Cause removed
02/01/2013 Case stated
27/02/2013 Written submissions (Keating)
21/03/2013 Written submissions (DPP)
21/03/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
26/03/2013 Reply
27/03/2013 Written submissions - Amended (Attorney-General of the Commonweath intervening)
03/04/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
08/05/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Apotex Pty Ltd v. Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd and Ors
Case No.
S1/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/07/2012 Federal Court of Australia (Keane CJ, Bennett and Yates JJ)
Catchwords
Intellectual Property – Patents – Patent claimed administration of pharmaceutical drug as method of preventing or treating particular condition – Administration of drug for different purpose than that specified in patent had effect of preventing or treating condition referred to in patent – Whether methods of treating human body patentable inventions within the meaning of s 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1900 (Cth) – Whether second or subsequent medical uses of previously known products patentable inventions.
Intellectual Property – Patents – Infringement – Patent claims use of compound for treatment of a specified disease – Whether a person who supplies the compound and indicates its use for treatment of a different disease infringes the patent under s 177(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).
Documents
14/12/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
02/01/2013 Notice of appeal
25/01/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
25/01/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
15/02/2013 Written submissions (Respondents)
01/03/2013 Reply
28/05/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
29/05/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
04/12/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)