Plaintiff M47/2012 v. Director General of Security and Ors
Case No.
M47/2012
Case Information
Catchwords
Plaintiff found to be refugee by UNHCR in Indonesia - applied for protection visa - plaintiff given adverse ASIO assessment - protection visa refused - whether Director-General of Security has obligation to accord natural justice - power of 2nd & 3rd defendants to detain plaintiff under Migration Act.
Documents
23/05/2012 Application for an order to show cause
28/05/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
30/05/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra v/link to Melbourne)
06/06/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane v/link to Melbourne)
01/06/2012 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)
08/06/2012 Written submissions (Australian Human Rights Commission seeking leave to intervene)
08/06/2012 Written submissions (Plaintiff S138/2012 seeking leave to intervene)
12/06/2012 Revised written submissions (Plaintiff)
12/06/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
13/06/2012 Written submissions (Defendants)
15/06/2012 Reply
18/06/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
18/06/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
19/06/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
21/06/2012 Further written submissions (Plaintiff)
21/06/2012 Further written submissions (Defendants)
21/06/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
05/10/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
29/11/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
RCB as litigation guardian of EKV, CEV, CIV and LRV v. The Honourable Justice Colin James Forrest, one of the judges of the Family Court of Australia & Ors
Case No.
B28/2012
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Constitution, Ch III – Family court proceedings – Director-General of the Department of Child Safety (Queensland) initiated proceedings in the Family Court of Australia under Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 ("regulations") – Court ordered that EKV, CEV, CIV and LRV ("the affected children") be returned to Italy – Affected children did not have separate and independent legal representation in proceedings – Section 68L(3) of Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("Act") provides that in proceedings under the regulations a court "may order that the child's interests … be independently represented … only if the court considers there are exceptional circumstances that justify doing so" – Whether s 68L(3) of Act and the regulations require a Chapter III court to exercise judicial power in a manner repugnant to the judicial process.
Administrative law – Procedural fairness – Scope and content of duty of procedural fairness – Application by litigation guardian to intervene in hearing of application to discharge return order – Whether refusal of opportunity to have separate and independent representation denied affected children procedural fairness.
Documents
21/05/2012 Application for an order to show cause
22/05/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)
24/05/2012 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)
25/05/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)
22/06/2012 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
13/07/2012 Written submissions (Third Defendant)
17/07/2012 Written submissions (Second Defendant)
20/07/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
20/07/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
20/07/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
27/07/2012 Reply
31/07/2012 Written submissions (Fourth Defendant)
07/08/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
07/11/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Douglass v. The Queen
Case No.
A17/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
4/02/2011 Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Gray J, Sulan J, Anderson J)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Evidence — Burden of proof — Sexual offences — Unsworn evidence — Applicant tried before a judge alone of two counts of indecent assault against his daughter ("LD") and one count of aggravated indecent assault against LD's daughter ("CD") — Applicant found not guilty of counts concerning LD and guilty of count concerning CD — LD's evidence given in form of a video under s 34CA of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) — LD's evidence unsworn and uncorroborated — LD's evidence contradicted in court by accused’s sworn evidence — Only evidence adduced by prosecution in relation to the offence against LD was that of LD — Whether or not the burden of proof against the applicant discharged — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in considering that this case was a case of "word against word".
Documents
11/05/2012 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by V/link to Adelaide)
25/05/2012 Notice of appeal
12/06/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
13/06/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
03/07/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
17/07/2012 Reply
16/08/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
07/09/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Cooper v. The Queen
Case No.
S135/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
5/12/2011 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Beazley JA, Hidden J, R A Hulme J)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Homicide — Appeal against conviction — Applicant convicted of murder — Applicant originally stood trial with co-accused — Co-accused acquitted of the murder at separate trial — Co-accused subsequently gave evidence at applicant's trial — Co-accused gave evidence that applicant assaulted deceased with bat and axe — Evidence was adduced that suggested deceased threatened applicant's daughter and assaulted applicant — Another witness "C" gave evidence that co-accused admitted hitting deceased with an axe — Crown presented case as applicant solely responsible for the death or alternatively guilty for participation in a joint criminal enterprise with co-accused — Trial judge included joint criminal enterprise in written directions and further written directions to jury — Culpability for joint criminal enterprise was said to be founded on C's evidence coupled with a rejection of self-defence — Court of Criminal Appeal accepted that joint criminal enterprise was not supported by the evidence but applied the proviso in s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) — Whether the error upheld in applicant's appeal, in which joint criminal enterprise liability was left to the jury when it was not open on the evidence, so fundamental as to preclude application of the proviso — Whether the Court erred in holding that there was no error or inadequacy in the trial judge's directions on joint criminal enterprise, self-defence (or defence of another) and the co-accused's confession to witness "C" — Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in holding that defence counsel's failure to adduce relevant evidence in relation to the deceased's mental condition did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.
Documents
11/05/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
25/05/2012 Notice of appeal
08/06/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/06/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
29/06/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
06/07/2012 Reply
09/08/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
14/11/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
The Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated of NSW v. Director of Public Employment and Ors
Case No.
S127/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
31/10/2011 Industrial Court of New South Wales (Full Court) (Walton J, Kavanagh J, Backman J)
Catchwords
Constitutional law (Cth) — Constitution, Ch III — Vesting of federal jurisdiction in State courts — Institutional integrity of State Courts — Power of State Parliament to alter defining characteristic of Court of a State — Relationship between the NSW Industrial Commission and the Industrial Court — Presidential members of the NSW Industrial Commission are the only persons who may be appointed as members of the Industrial Court — Certain functions of the NSW Industrial Commission can only be exercised by the Commission constituted as Industrial Court — Section 146C of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), inserted by the Industrial Relations Amendment (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Act 2011 (NSW) ("Act"), effectively requires the NSW Industrial Commission, not Industrial Court, to give effect to executive policies — Whether the Act is invalid by reason that it undermines the institutional integrity of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission when constituted as Industrial Court — Whether imposition of a requirement upon judges of a State court to give effect to executive policy when exercising non-judicial functions as part of an arbitral tribunal undermines institutional integrity or appearance of independence and impartially of that court — Whether requirement imposed upon judicial members to give effect to executive policy when sitting as the NSW Industrial Commission undermines institutional integrity of the Industrial Court.
Documents
11/05/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
18/05/2012 Notice of appeal
18/05/2012 Notice of constitutional matter (Appellant)
04/06/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
04/06/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
29/06/2012 Written submissions (Respondents)
06/07/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
06/07/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Victoria intervening)
06/07/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intevening)
06/07/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intevening)
13/07/2012 Reply
05/09/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
12/12/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)