Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, in an appeal by way of re-hearing, "in deciding the proper inferences to be drawn from facts undisputed or otherwise found, the appeal court will give respect and weight to the conclusion of the trial judge, but, once having reached its own conclusion, will not shrink from giving effect to it"? Is error "limited to showing why or how the trial judge erred in the process or approach that was taken"?

High Court. Can it be said that the type of invalidity effected by s 109 of the Constitution does not render the State law void or beyond State legislative power, but instead renders the State law "inoperative"? If so, does it follow that, "on and from the Commonwealth law ceasing to have effect, the State law resumes its full force and effect"?

Federal Court: In Sharma, FCA had held that: if "a previous conviction is the foundation for the exercise of power by the decision-maker, no challenge can be made to the fact of the conviction (or sentence)" in the context of s 501(6)(d)(i); otherwise, "the essential facts underlying the conviction are not immune from challenge", although there is a "heavy onus on a person seeking to challenge" them. Was Sharma wrongly decided? Does Sharma apply to s 116(1)(e)? Further, are the considerations set out in Direction 65 or Direction 79 exhaustive?

High Court. Do the verbs "give" and "invite" in s 501CA(3) require that regard be had to the circumstances of the recipient? Must the information and invitation be given by the Minister, or a delegate, personally? Did the timeframe of 28 days within which to make a revocation request under s 501CA(4) run from the date the invitation was sent via email to the immigration detention centre, instead of when it was handed to the respondent a day later? By incorrectly stating the 28 days by reference to the date of the email, was the invitation invalid? Can an analogy be drawn with DFQ17 ?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is compliance with the Direction 90 achieved by focussing upon individual considerations and attributing some form of “weight” to that consideration viewed in isolation, without disclosing any process of reasoning which led from the attachment of weight to each consideration to the ultimate conclusion?

Federal Court. May there "be overlap between a failure to afford an opportunity to be heard, and a reasonable apprehension of bias on the ground of pre-judgment, because the former may give rise to the latter"?

High Court (Full Court). Appellant was born in what is now Malta in 1945, as a British subject. He then entered Australia in 1948 and became a UK citizen in 1949, retaining the status of a British subject. He held an absorbed person visa since 1994, until that visa was cancelled. He was never naturalised Australian and his parents were not Australian citizens. Can it be said that, because the Appellant had the status of a British subject when he arrived in Australia, he could not then have been conceived of as an "alien", with the result that he thereby acquired the status of a non-alien and therefore that he remains outside the reach of s 51(xix) of the Constitution?

Federal Court. Generally speaking, a person does not lose Australian citizenship by becoming a citizen of another country. However, there are exceptions. For instance, in some circumstances, a person who once was an Australian citizen is not an Australian citizen under the Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) if they became a citizen of PNG by reason of the PNG Constitution. In this particular decision, did the Applicant become a PNG citizen by reason of the PNG Constitution and therefore lose his Australian citizenship?

Federal Court. There is no precise standard to determining whether an unarticulated claim has been "squarely raised" or "clearly emerges" from the materials. But will a court be more willing to make that finding in favour of an unrepresented party?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "the Tribunal’s most scathing criticisms of the applicant’s lawyers’ conduct were quite unjustified"? Would a fair-minded observer "reasonably regard the Tribunal as having launched an unjustified attack on the applicant’s lawyers"? Did the Tribunal effectively take the role of a contradictor?