LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Judgment
Hossain Ali Ashrafi
Fatima Ayoubi
v
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00pm
For Mention via video-link to PWR, Alexander Street, Burnie
Riley Jason Causon
For Bail ConsentEmma-Lisa Eronen
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Natalie Maher
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am
For Bail Consent
David Shaw
For Mention
MJD
For Trial
MJDCourt 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30a.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Skye Kathleen Latham
11:00a.m.
For Bail Application
Mitchell Andrew Allie
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Vibe Tasmania Pty Ltd v J2J Ventures Pty Ltd
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00p.m.
For Sentencing via video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Luke Edward Braid
Daniel Francis Ferguson
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00a.m.
For Hearing
CHAMBER MATTER
12:00p.m.
For Hearing
High Professional Productions Pty Ltd v Australia Personnel Global Pty Ltd
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video-link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Natalie Maher
BURNIE
Private Witness Room, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00pm
For Mention via video-link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Riley Jason Causon
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00p.m.
For Sentencing via video-link from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Luke Edward Braid
Daniel Francis Ferguson
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 331
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Hossain Ali Ashrafi and Fatima Ayoubi, the applicants, sought a ruling from the Supreme Court of Tasmania on whether they were required to surrender their Australian passports to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth), the respondent. The applicants, who were permanent residents of Australia, were subject to an investigation by the Australian Federal Police regarding their alleged involvement in a terrorist-related activity. The respondents were directed by the Minister for Home Affairs to surrender their passports to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) under section 118(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The applicants sought a judicial review of that direction.
The applicants argued that the direction to surrender their passports was invalid for several reasons. Firstly, they argued that the Minister had failed to consider whether the applicants were permanent residents of Australia before issuing the direction. Secondly, they contended that the Minister had failed to consider their individual circumstances when making the decision to surrender their passports. Finally, the applicants argued that the Minister had failed to give the applicants an opportunity to make representations before issuing the direction.
The Court found that the applicants' arguments were without merit. The Court held that the Minister was not required to consider whether the applicants were permanent residents of Australia before issuing the direction, as the Minister's power under section 118(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) was not dependent on the applicants' residency status. The Court also found that the Minister was not required to consider the applicants' individual circumstances when making the decision to surrender their passports, as the decision was based on the applicants' alleged involvement in a terrorist-related activity. Finally, the Court held that the applicants were not entitled to an opportunity to make representations before the Minister issued the direction, as the Minister's power under section 118(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) did not provide for such an opportunity.
The Court dismissed the applicants' claim and ordered that they surrender their Australian passports to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth).
The applicants argued that the direction to surrender their passports was invalid for several reasons. Firstly, they argued that the Minister had failed to consider whether the applicants were permanent residents of Australia before issuing the direction. Secondly, they contended that the Minister had failed to consider their individual circumstances when making the decision to surrender their passports. Finally, the applicants argued that the Minister had failed to give the applicants an opportunity to make representations before issuing the direction.
The Court found that the applicants' arguments were without merit. The Court held that the Minister was not required to consider whether the applicants were permanent residents of Australia before issuing the direction, as the Minister's power under section 118(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) was not dependent on the applicants' residency status. The Court also found that the Minister was not required to consider the applicants' individual circumstances when making the decision to surrender their passports, as the decision was based on the applicants' alleged involvement in a terrorist-related activity. Finally, the Court held that the applicants were not entitled to an opportunity to make representations before the Minister issued the direction, as the Minister's power under section 118(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) did not provide for such an opportunity.
The Court dismissed the applicants' claim and ordered that they surrender their Australian passports to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth).
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.