Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v. Makasa
Case No.
S103/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
28/02/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Kenny, Besanko, Bromwich and Banks-Smith JJ)
Catchwords
Migration law – Visa cancellation – Character test – Substantial criminal record – Where Minister’s delegate cancelled respondent’s visa on character grounds – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT”) set aside delegate’s decision and decided not to cancel visa – Where Minister subsequently personally purported to cancel respondent’s visa – Whether the Minister can re-exercise discretion conferred by s 501(2) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to cancel person’s visa where AAT has previously set aside Minister’s delegate’s earlier decision to cancel visa under s 501(2) – If yes, whether Minister can rely on same offences (going to whether person has substantial criminal record for purposes of character test) to enliven discretion in s 501(2) as AAT relied upon when reviewing delegate’s decision.
Documents
12/06/2020 Determination (SLA, Melbourne)
24/06/2020 Notice of appeal
31/07/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
31/07/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
28/08/2020 Written submissions (Respondent)
18/09/2020 Reply
12/11/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
(Including pronouncement of orders)
12/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
12/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
03/02/2021 Reasons for Judgment (Judgment summary)
Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inv v. New Acland Coal Pty Ltd & Ors
Case No.
B34/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
10/09/2019; 01/11/2019 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Sofronoff P, Philippides JA and Burns J)
[2019] QCA 184; [2019] QCA 238
Catchwords
Administrative law – Apprehended bias – Relief – Jurisdiction of inferior courts – Where first respondent applied for two mining leases and to amend existing environmental authority – Where appellant lodged objections to applications – Where Land Court of Queensland rejected applications – Where first respondent sought judicial review of Land Court’s decision, urging grounds that included apprehended bias and errors in relation to groundwater issues – Where Queensland Supreme Court rejected bias grounds but accepted groundwater grounds and remitted issues relating to groundwater to Land Court for redetermination, holding that Land Court bound by original findings and conclusions on questions other than groundwater issues – Where appellant appealed against remittal orders and first respondent cross-appealed on apprehended bias issue – Where Land Court, differently constituted, proceeded with hearing in accordance with remittal orders despite pending appeal, and recommended that applications should be approved – Where Court of Appeal subsequently dismissed appeal on groundwater issues but allowed cross-appeal on apprehended bias – Where despite allowing cross-appeal and making declaration that Land Court’s original decision affected by want of procedural fairness, Court of Appeal did not set aside remittal orders – Whether in circumstances where reviewing court concludes decision of inferior court affected by reasonable apprehension of bias, reviewing court can refuse to set aside decision below and order new trial either at all, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, or on the basis of futility – Whether order of superior court requiring inferior court to proceed in certain way can augment jurisdiction of inferior court so as to validate decision of inferior court that would otherwise be nullity.
Documents
05/06/2020 Hearing (SLA, Sydney and by video connection)
19/06/2020 Notice of appeal
26/06/2020 Submitting appearance (Second Respondent)
24/07//2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
24/07/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
10/08/2020 Submitting appearance (Third Respondent)
21/08/2020 Written submissions (First Respondent)
11/09/2020 Reply
06/10/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
06/10/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
06/10/2020 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
03/02/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Bell v. State of Tasmania
Case No.
H2/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
15/11/2019 Supreme Court of Tasmania (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Pearce and Brett JJ, Martin AJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Defences – Honest and reasonable mistake – Where applicant charged with one count of rape and one count of supply of controlled drug to child – Where trial judge left defence of honest and reasonable mistake as to age in relation to rape charge – Where counsel for applicant requested similar direction in respect of supply charge – Where trial judge refused to make such direction on basis that defence of honest and reasonable mistake as to age would not relieve applicant of criminal responsibility with respect to supply charge – Where jury convicted applicant of supply charge but could not reach verdict on rape or alternative charge of sexual intercourse with person under age of 17 – Where at retrial of sexual offence jury found applicant not guilty of rape but convicted on alternative charge – Where Court of Criminal Appeal upheld trial judge’s decision that defence of honest and reasonable mistake as to age not available in relation to supply charge – Whether defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact only available where its successful use would lead to defendant not being guilty of any crime.
Documents
05/06/2020 Hearing (SLA, Sydney and by video connection)
19/06/2020 Notice of appeal
24/07/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
24/07/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
21/08/2020 Written submissions (Respondent)
11/09/2020 Reply
03/02/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
03/02/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
03/02/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
29/03/2021 Further written submissions (Appellant)
12/04/2021 Further written submissions (Respondent)
27/04/2021 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland, intervening)
27/04/2021 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania, intervening)
27/04/2021 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales, intervening)
04/05/2021 Supplementary Reply
03/08/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) VACATED
05/10/2021 Further outline of oral argument (Appellant)
05/10/2021 Further outline of oral argument (Respondent)
05/10/2021 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland, intervening)
05/10/2021 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania, intervening)
05/10/2021 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales, intervening)
05/10/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra by video connection) (Audio-visual recording)
06/10/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra by video connection) (Audio-visual recording)
08/12/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Peniamina v. The Queen
Case No.
B32/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
29/11/2019 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Morrison and McMurdo JJA and Appplegarth J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Defences – Provocation – Criminal Code (Qld) s 304 – Where applicant charged with murdering his wife – Where applicant pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter on basis of provocation – Where applicant bore onus of proving provocation – Where jury convicted applicant of murder – Where Court of Appeal held by majority that jury had not been misdirected as to provocation and dismissed applicant’s appeal against conviction – Whether operation of s 304(3)(c) confined to provocative conduct identified by applicant as causing loss of self-control, or whether jury may also consider other conduct.
Documents*
05/06/2020 Hearing (SLA, Sydney and by video connection)
16/06/2020 Notice of appeal
24/07/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
24/07/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
21/08/2020 Written submissions (Respondent)
15/10/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
15/10/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
15/10/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
09/12/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v. AAM17 & Anor
Case No.
P23/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
25/11/2019 Federal Court of Australia (Mortimer J)
Catchwords
Administrative law – Procedural fairness – Where first respondent unsuccessfully applied for protection visa and where Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed refusal decision – Where first respondent sought judicial review of Tribunal’s decision in Federal Circuit Court (“FCC”) – Where first respondent appeared in person before FCC with assistance of translator – Where at conclusion of hearing FCC made orders dismissing application and gave ex tempore reasons – Where reasons for judgment published two months later after first respondent had instituted appeal to Federal Court – Where Federal Court allowed appeal on basis that first respondent denied procedural fairness by FCC and that there had therefore been no real exercise of judicial power in the circumstances – Where Federal Court considered that FCC’s review of Tribunal’s decision otherwise unaffected by error warranting appellate attention – Whether requirement of procedural fairness, either generally or in relation to courts, includes duty to provide reasons – If yes, whether such requirement extends to requiring reasons to be provided in particular manner and/or time – What is appropriate form of order for court conducting appeal by way of rehearing to make in circumstances where appellate court finds court below denied appellant procedural fairness and also considers decision under appeal correct.
Documents
29/05/2020 Hearing (SLA, Brisbane and video-connection)
12/06/2020 Notice of appeal
17/07/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
17/07/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
14/08/2020 Written submissions (First respondent)
04/09/2020 Reply
03/12/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
03/12/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
03/12/2020 Outline of oral argument (First respondent)
04/03/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)