FRENCH CJ: Before we commence today, I would like to welcome Justice Robert Ribeiro of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal who joins us on the Bench to observe some of this morning’s proceedings. Please call the matter for hearing.

MR J.K. KIRK, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friends, MR G. J. WILLIAMS and MR D.P. HUME, for the applicant on the motion. (instructed by Zali Burrows Lawyers)

MR R.J. BROMWICH, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MS A.M. MITCHELMORE, for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth))

MR J.T. GLEESON, SC, Solicitor‑General of the Commonwealth of Australia: May it please the Court, I appear with MR C.P. O’DONNELL and MR J.S. STELLIOS, for the Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth of Australia, intervening. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

MR P.J. DUNNING, QC, Solicitor‑General of the State of Queensland: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR A.D. KEYES, for the Attorney‑General of the State of Queensland, intervening. (instructed by Crown Solicitor (Qld))

MR M.E. O’FARRELL, SC, Solicitor‑General for the State of Tasmania: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR S.K. KAY, for the Attorney‑General for the State of Tasmania, intervening. (instructed by Solicitor‑General (Tas))

MR R.M. NIALL, QC, Solicitor‑General for the State of Victoria: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR F.I. GORDON, for the Attorney‑General for the State of Victoria, intervening. (instructed by Victorian Government Solicitor)

MR M.G. EVANS, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with MS F.J. McDONALD, for the Attorney‑General for the State of South Australia, intervening. (instructed by Crown Solicitor (SA))

FRENCH CJ: Thank you. Yes, Mr Kirk.

MR KIRK: Your Honours should have our outline of oral propositions.

FRENCH CJ: Yes.

MR KIRK: First, your Honours, I will seek simply to place the matter in its immediate context. Without taking your Honours to it, your Honours will have seen the indictment against my client on seven charges of the cause removed book pages 1 to 5. In relation to the provisions under which my client is charged, if your Honours go to the Commonwealth’s written submissions, annexure A immediately behind their primary submissions, it contains sections 6 and 7 of the Commonwealth Act under which my client is charged. Without getting bogged in detail, specifically he is charged with an offence under section 7(1)(e) of the Act which itself picks…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Alqudsi v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Alqudsi v The Queen [2016] HCATrans 13
Case: [2016] HCATrans 13
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Alqudsi against his conviction for a number of offences under the *Criminal Code Act 1995* (Cth), including providing resources to a terrorist organisation. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the proper interpretation of provisions relating to the use of such evidence in criminal proceedings.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence obtained by ASIO under a warrant, and whether the evidence was properly admitted given the provisions of the *Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979* (Cth) and the *Criminal Code*. Specifically, the Court had to determine the scope of the protections afforded to ASIO officers when providing information to law enforcement agencies and the extent to which such information could be used in subsequent criminal proceedings, particularly in light of potential breaches of the ASIO Act.

The High Court analysed the interplay between the ASIO Act and the Criminal Code, focusing on the admissibility of evidence obtained through ASIO's investigative powers. The Court considered the statutory framework governing the use of ASIO-obtained information in criminal proceedings, including the requirements for disclosure and the protections afforded to ASIO officers. The reasoning involved an interpretation of the relevant provisions to ascertain whether the evidence in question had been lawfully obtained and admitted, and whether any alleged impropriety in the collection or use of the evidence warranted its exclusion. The Court ultimately found that the evidence was admissible.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Mr Alqudsi.

Orders