ss 24(1A) & (1C) of FCA Act interpreted

Federal Court. Section 24(1A) of the FCA Act provided that an appeal shall not be brought from an interlocutory judgement unless the FCA gives leave. Does Jackson apply equally to the notice of appeal filed in this case? If so, did the exception under s 24(1C) apply? Did the decision under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) interfere with the sentence and parole orders of the District Court of NSW in violation of the separations of powers?

Circuit Court obliged, or not permitted, to reduce oral reasons to writing?

Federal Court. Did the primary judge err in: refusing to provide written reasons following delivery of his ex tempore reasons; communicating that he had no power to publish written reasons? If so to the latter question, does that error invalidate the primary judge’s exercise of judicial power? Does the primary judge’s indication that he would not settle a form of written reasons mean that he failed to give reasons? Can an incomplete transcript of oral reasons be relied upon as reasons of the Court?

Rome Statute & s 5H(2)(a) of Migration Act

Federal Court. Can it be said that "the generally serious consequences of refoulement – but not the particular consequences in an individual case – are taken into account in giving meaning and content to the requirement that there be “serious reasons for considering”" pursuant to s 5H(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)? How to interpret Articles 22(1) and 25(3)(c)-(d) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, entered into force 1 July 2002?

Can AAT wait for appeal outcome?

Federal Court. Can the Tribunal determine for itself that it will not comply with a court order until it is known whether such an order is overturned by a higher court?

Did s 500(6H) preclude answers given to questions put by the AAT?

Federal Court. Did s 500(6H) "preclude the Tribunal from considering information which is not presented by, or on behalf of an applicant, including information that arises from cross-examination or answers given in response to questions put by the Tribunal"? Does s 500(6H) have the effect that oral evidence, which may be given in support of a review applicant’s case cannot "depar[t] in a substantive way from the content of the written statements"?

UNCAT’s Interim Measures Request

Federal Court. Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to hear the application for judicial review insofar as it seeks: declarations that the Minister's decision that the United Nations Committee Against Torture's Interim Measures Request was 'unwarranted' is affected by jurisdictional error; a declaration that Australia owes non-refoulement obligations in relation to the Applicant?

Can s 36(3) be satisfied despite very harsh conditions in a third country?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "the existence of unreasonable or even very harsh conditions in a third country is not a basis to disengage s 36(3), unless the circumstances in subss (4), (5) or (5A) exist"? If so, is "an interpretation of the phrase “right to enter and reside” which incorporates some limited form of qualitative assessment" precluded? If so, would a person "entering a refugee camp, or a camp for displaced persons, where their freedom would be confined and they would be dependent (for example) on international aid" have the right to reside in the country?

Did giving court decision to 2nd IAA lead to apprehended bias?

Federal Court. Secretary gave IAA prejudicial material that was irrelevant to the criteria in question. High Court (HCA) had held that a fair-minded lay observer might have apprehended that the IAA might have made a decision otherwise that on the proper merits of the case and remitted the matter to the IAA for reconsideration according to law. The Secretary then provided the HCA's decision to the IAA, differently constituted. As the HCA's decision contained a summary of the prejudicial material, did the giving of that decision to the second IAA give rise to apprehended bias?

RMA not allowed to speak, thus no waiver?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "since the appellant’s migration agent was told in no uncertain terms during the [Tribunal] review hearing that she was not entitled to speak, there can be no objection to upholding [a ground of review of apprehension of bias] on the basis of waiver"?

Can AAT direct a person to attend a medical examination?

Federal Court. Was the Tribunal's direction, requiring the Applicant to attend and participate in a consultation with a psychiatrist, an impermissible interference with the Applicant's fundamental rights to liberty or privacy?

Copyrighted Image

error: Content is protected !!