A record of recent High Court of Australia cases: decided, reserved for judgment, awaiting hearing in the Court’s original jurisdiction, granted special leave to appeal, refused special leave to appeal and not proceeding or vacated

1: Summary of New Entries
2: Cases Handed Down
3: Cases Reserved
4: Original Jurisdiction
5: Section 40 Removal
6: Special Leave Granted
7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
8: Special Leave Refused

1: Summary of New Entries

2: Cases Handed Down

Case	Title
Nguyen v The Queen	Evidence
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CED16	Immigration

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Private R v Cowen & Anor	Constitutional Law
Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd v AMWU & Ors; Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations v AMWU & Ors	Employment Law

4: Original Jurisdiction

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v EFX17	Migration Law
The Commissioner of Taxation for the Commonwealth of Australia v Travelex Limited	Taxation

7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

8: Special Leave Refused

2: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the June-July 2020 sittings.

Evidence

Nguyen v The Queen

D15/2019: [2020] HCA 23

Judgment delivered: 30 June 2020

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ

Catchwords:

Evidence – Criminal trial – Mixed statements – Where appellant interviewed by police prior to being charged – Where appellant made inculpatory and exculpatory statements during interview ("mixed statements") – Where recorded interview relevant and admissible – Where recorded interview not tendered by prosecution at trial – Whether prosecution's obligation to put case fully and fairly requires tender of records of interview containing mixed statements.

Words and phrases – "admissibility of mixed statements", "admissions", "all available, cogent and admissible evidence", "duty of fairness", "ethical practice", "fair trial", "fully and fairly", "inculpatory and exculpatory statements", "miscarriage of justice", "mixed record of interview", "mixed statement", "obligation to tender", "prosecutorial discretion", "prosecutorial duty", "record of interview", "rule of practice", "speculation by the jury", "tactical decision".

Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) – ss 59(1), 81, 190.

Appealed from NTSC (FC): [2019] NTSC 37; (2019) 345 FLR 40

Held: Appeal allowed.

Return to Top

Immigration

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CED16

S347/2019: [2020] HCA 24
Judgment delivered: 30 June 2020

Coram: Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ

Catchwords:

Immigration – Refugees – Application for protection visa – Immigration Assessment Authority ("Authority") – Review by Authority under Pt 7AA of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where delegate of Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant first respondent protection visa – Where decision referred to Authority for review – Where Authority ordinarily obliged to consider "review material" provided by Secretary of Department of Immigration and Border Protection ("Secretary") without considering "new information" – Where review material must include material considered by Secretary…

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 High Court Bulletin

Details

AGLC: High Court Bulletin [2020] HCAB 5
Case: [2020] HCAB 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia recently handed down two significant decisions. In Nguyen v The Queen, the Court held that the prosecution's obligation to put its case fully and fairly required the tender of records of police interviews containing both inculpatory and exculpatory statements, or "mixed statements". In Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CED16, the Court considered the meaning of "new information" in the context of a review by the Immigration Assessment Authority of a delegate's decision under the Migration Act. In Nguyen v The Queen, the appellant was interviewed by police prior to being charged. During the interview, the appellant made both inculpatory and exculpatory statements. The recorded interview was relevant and admissible, but the prosecution did not tender it at trial. The Court held that the prosecution's duty of fairness required it to tender the record of interview containing mixed statements when it was admissible, and that the prosecution was not permitted to decline to tender the record of interview for purely tactical reasons. In Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CED16, the appellant applied for a protection visa. The delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant the visa. The decision was referred to the Immigration Assessment Authority for review. The Authority considered the review material provided by the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, but did not consider a certificate that purported to certify that disclosure of information or matter contained in the identity assessment form was contrary to the public interest. The Court held that the certificate was not "new information" within the meaning of s 473DC(1) of the Migration Act, and that the Authority could be inferred to have considered that the certificate may have been relevant to the conduct of the review.

Orders