Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 19 November 2015 30 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin
Produced by the Legal Research Officer,
High Court of Australia Library

[2015] HCAB 9 (19 November 2015)
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: Cases Handed Down
2: Cases Reserved
3: Original Jurisdiction
4: Special Leave Granted
5: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
6: Special Leave Refused

Summary of New Entries
1: Cases Handed Down

Case

Title

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH & Anor

Administrative Law

The Queen (Cth) v Pham

Criminal Law

North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Limited & Anor v Northern Territory of Australia

Statutory Interpretation

2: Cases Reserved

Case

Title

Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors

Employment Law

Plaintiff M64/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Migration

Wei v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Migration

State of Victoria v Tatts Group Limited

Statutes

Tabcorp Holdings Limited v State of Victoria

Statutes

3: Original Jurisdiction
No new entries for November 2015.
4: Special Leave Granted

Case

Title

Acquista Investments Pty Ltd & Anor v The Urban Renewal Authority & Ors

Administrative Law

Mok v Director of Public Prosecutions

Constitutional Law

Miller v The Queen

Criminal Law

R & Anor v The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commissioner

Criminal Law

Zaburoni v The Queen

Criminal Law

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May

Workers Compensation

1: Cases Handed Down
The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the November 2015 sittings.
Administrative Law
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH & Anor
S85/2015: [2015] HCA 40.
Judgment delivered: 4 November 2015.
Coram: Kiefel, Bell, Gageler, Keane and Gordon JJ.
Catchwords:
Administrative law – Procedural fairness – Refugee Status Assessment – Independent Merits Review ("IMR") – Where first reviewer conducted interview with first respondent but did not complete IMR – Where second reviewer completed IMR without interview but with regard to transcript and audio recording of first reviewer's interview – Where first respondent not informed of change in identity of reviewer – Where second reviewer formed adverse view of first respondent's credibility – Whether first respondent denied procedural fairness.

Words and phrases – "legitimate expectation", "opportunity to be heard", "oral hearing", "procedural fairness", "unfairness".

Appealed from FCA (FC): (2014) 142 ALD 490; (2014) 316 ALR 389; [2014] FCAFC 137.
Held: Appeal dismissed.
Return to Top
Constitutional Law
See also Statutory Interpretation: North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Limited & Anor v Northern Territory of Australia.
Return to Top
Criminal Law
The Queen (Cth) v Pham
M82/2015: [2015] HCA 39.
Judgment delivered: 4 November 2015.
Coram: French CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane and Nettle JJ.
Catchwords:
Criminal law – Sentencing – Federal offences – Consistency – Current sentencing practices – Whether sentencing courts to have regard to current sentencing practices throughout Commonwealth.

Criminal law – Appeals against sentence –…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read High Court Bulletin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] HCAB 9
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH & Anor was heard by the High Court of Australia, which considered whether the first respondent had been denied procedural fairness when a second reviewer conducted an Independent Merits Review without conducting an interview but rather relied on the transcript and audio recording of the first reviewer's interview with the first respondent. The court held that the first respondent had not been denied procedural fairness as the first reviewer had already conducted an interview and provided an accurate transcript and audio recording of the interview, and the second reviewer had not been required to conduct an interview in light of the materials available. The appeal was dismissed.

In The Queen (Cth) v Pham, the High Court of Australia considered whether sentencing courts should have regard to current sentencing practices throughout the Commonwealth when sentencing for federal offences. The court held that sentencing courts must take into account current sentencing practices throughout the Commonwealth. The court also held that it was permissible to assess current sentencing practices by statistical analysis of the correlation between sentence and quantity of drug imported. The appeal was allowed.

In North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Limited & Anor v Northern Territory of Australia, the High Court of Australia considered whether Div 4AA of Pt VII of Police Administration Act (NT) conferred powers on the Northern Territory executive which impaired, undermined or detracted from the institutional integrity of the Northern Territory courts. The court held that the provision did not confer powers on the Northern Territory executive which impaired, undermined or detracted from the institutional integrity of the Northern Territory courts. The questions were answered.

Orders