Anna Talbot

ASF17 v Commonwealth [2024] HCA 19 (ASF17 v Commonwealth) is the latest judgment of the High Court of Australia in the hotly contested space of immigration detention. With this case,the High Court reaffirmed that indefinite immigration detention remains available in Australia. Its permissible use has narrowed, however, when compared with the law prior to the High Court’s ruling in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration [2023] HCA 37 (NZYQ). In determining whether immigration detention is valid, ASF17 v Commonwealth tells us that the circumstances and motivations of the plaintiff is key. However, the ruling hinges on a troubling concept of ‘choice’, the consequence of which is that people who are at risk of persecution or death if they are deported can remain indefinitely detained if they refuse to be deported to such risks. This post examines the history leading up to the decision in ASF17 v Commonwealth, unpacking the facts and arguments made by the parties and how they were responded to by the Court. While the case is problematic, in that it permits indefinite detention based on choices that no person should be expected to make, it also offers insights which might serve to assist those seeking release from indefinite immigration detention in the future.

Lael K Weis

Like the other contributors to this series, I had the privilege of travelling to Darwin to attend the High Court hearings for Commonwealth v Yunupingu (D5/2023) on August 7th, 8th and 9th. This post offers a set of reflections based on attending those hearings.  My focus is on the second ground of the appeal: namely, whether native title rights fall outside the scope of s 51(xxxi) because they are ‘inherently defeasible’.  This issue consumed most of the parties’ time and attention in argument over these three days, and my instinct is that the appeal is likely to be determined on this basis. 

Sean Brennan

For more than 40 years, cases initiated by Aboriginal people have tested the interpretation of key constitutional provisions in Australia’s highest court. Since Mabo v Queensland (No 2), the High Court of Australia has also been instrumental in defining and confining possibilities for what First Nations groups might achieve through the vehicle of native title. That has included ten test cases on extinguishment law, the Yorta Yorta decision that set a high legal bar for proving continuity of connection, and the Timber Creek case about statutory rights to compensation for the extinguishment of native title.

Another such moment of reckoning has arrived for First Nations people, and for the High Court in the development of native title law and its interpretation of the Constitution.

On 9 August, the High Court sitting in Darwin reserved judgment on the answer to three questions of law posed on appeal in Commonwealth v Yunupingu. This blog post will explore what the litigation is about, how the parties argued their position in Darwin and why the case is significant.

William Partlett

In February 2024, the High Court held in AB v IBAC [2024] HCA 10 that individuals facing an ‘adverse’ finding in a report issued by Victoria’s anti-corruption commission, the Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission (‘IBAC’), must be given broad access to the evidentiary material that justified that finding. In response, commentators have worried that this kind of ruling would damage the public interest, slowing down the release of anti-corruption reports while individuals litigate their ability to adequately respond to allegations.

Janina Boughey

Anyone who has worked in a government department for more than a brief period knows how much ministers differ in their interest in their portfolio, diligence, and competence. The best ones (from a departmental staffer’s perspective, at least) are efficient, yet seem to be across all of the important details, which they might demonstrate by asking pointed questions which raise issues the department may not have considered. Others are quick, but one gets a sense that they might not have really engaged with issues in their portfolio—that they are simply doing a ‘tick and flick’. They might, for instance, require all briefings to be less than a page long which, on complex policy issues, means leaving out important details and nuances. Then there are ministers who pore laboriously over every detail of even the most mundane, routine decisions.

Douglas McDonald-Norman

In order to determine whether a decision is affected by jurisdictional error, a court must ask two questions. Has an error occurred, in breach of the statutory conferral of power to make that decision? And, if so, was that error material to the decision-maker’s ultimate exercise of power? For an error to be material, an applicant for review must establish that there is a realistic possibility that, if not for the error, the decision-maker’s ultimate exercise of power could have been different.

Jerry Leung, Maxen Williams, and Kevin Zou

Last month, it was reported that the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions, Kerri Judd KC, had made complaints to the Judicial Commission of Victoria about two judges: Justice Lasry of the Supreme Court of Victoria, and Judge Chettle of the County Court of Victoria. In the complaint against Lasry J, the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions, Abbey Hogan, alleged that his Honour’s criticisms of the VDPP in DPP v Tuteru had ‘the real tendency to diminish [(1)] public confidence in the administration of justice in Victoria [and (2)] the confidence of litigants and the public in general in his Honour’s integrity and impartiality’. Shortly after being made aware of the complaint, Lasry J in open court announced that he would resign even though he ‘utterly rejected’ the allegations made against him.

In this post, we do not make any comment on the merits of the complaints against Lasry J and Judge Chettle. Rather, taking a step back from the Victorian saga, we argue that there are strong normative and legal reasons as to why the executive should exercise restraint before making a formal complaint against a judge. We begin by explaining why formal complaints made by the executive against the judiciary should be the exception rather than the norm. This is followed by an illustration of the other mechanisms available for securing judicial accountability that better uphold a culture of comity between the executive and the judiciary

Chris Honnery

In Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2, a five-judge bench of the High Court sitting in its original jurisdiction considered the construction, validity, and operation of Direction 90, a written direction given by the Minister to guide decision‑makers in exercising powers under s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

This post focuses on two of the aspects of the High Court’s unanimous judgment that will have broader ramifications for decisions to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds.

Kate Bones

The deportation of people who have lived in Australia for most of their lives – since they were children, or sometimes infants – has become an increasing feature of Australian immigration law over the last few decades. Two recent decisions of the High Court address a particular aspect of that practice: the consideration in visa cancellation decisions of offences committed when a person was a child.

Joe McIntyre

Judicial (and quasi-judicial) appointments  are one of those topics that judicial scholars can get really animated about, but which for the majority of the public and political classes is a bit of a nothing burger. We are blessed in this country with a judiciary with a well-deserved high reputation for quality and integrity.

It takes something pretty extraordinary for the public to care about judicial appointments, and for the media to pay any attention. Unfortunately, the recent history of appointments to the AAT provides just such a cautionary tale.

This post unpacks that background context of the role politicised appointments played in the death of the AAT, before examining how the ART Bill reforms Tribunal appointment procedures. In the final part, it explores the potential broader implications of these new processes.

Sangeetha Pillai

The Australian Constitution has a rather infamous track record when it comes to exclusion. Sometimes it excludes through silence. For example, since 1967 there has been no mention of First Nations peoples within its pages. It has very little to say about rights protection. It makes no reference to a national citizenship (but it does mention foreign citizens, if only to exclude them from Parliament).

Stephen McDonald SC

Much has been, and will continue to be, written about the substance of NZYQ v MICMA and its implications, both political and legal. This post focusses on some notable features of the judgment itself: in particular, the presentation of a single judgment joined in by all Judges, but which identifies individual positions taken by some of those Judges.

Jerry To

The recent judgment of the Federal Court of Australia in Smart Education Program Pty Ltd (in liq) v CLGC Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 826 (Smart Education) has raised much consternation. At first glance, the case appears to be a run-of-the-mill contractual dispute. However, the source of controversy arises from an unexpected source, which concerned not the parties but the conduct of the judges themselves.

Smart Education prompts interesting questions about whether there is any scope in Australian public law to provide relief to the parties in circumstances of undue judicial delay. This article will focus on one such possibility: whether the High Court of Australia could have issued a writ of mandamus compelling the Federal Court to hand down its judgment in a timely manner. This, in turn, raises complex questions going to the very heart of the operation of the federal judiciary and the High Court’s ability to regulate their conduct.

Harry Sanderson

Many foundational principles of Australian public law arise from constitutional implications, to the extent that that within the Constitution ‘much of the greatest importance is implied’ (McGraw-Hinds (Aust) Pty Ltd v Smith at 668 (Murphy J)). In Zurich Insurance Company Ltd & Anor v Koper & Anor [2023] HCA 25 (Zurich), the High Court unanimously rejected an argument identifying a novel constitutional implication. The Court was divided, however, on the proper approach to drawing implications within the Constitution. That division maps onto longstanding debates regarding the proper approach to constitutional interpretation.

This post considers the different approach taken by each judgment on the point of implications in light of the dominant methodology of textualism, and questions the distinction between text and structure which informs their reasoning.

Douglas McDonald-Norman

‘The national interest’ is a broad concept, and ‘largely a political question’. Decision-makers ordinarily enjoy considerable discretion in deciding what is and is not in ‘the national interest’. But in its recent judgment in ENT19 v Minister for Home Affairs [2023] HCA 18, by a narrow majority of 4 to 3, the High Court identified and reiterated important limits to what factors may be relevant in deciding whether it is in the ‘national interest’ to grant a protection visa.

This post will set out the factual and procedural history to this matter and analyse the majority’s reasoning in ENT19. This post will then examine the potential implications of this judgment for the scope of the term ‘national interest’, and for ENT19 himself.

Sarah Fulton and Geneviève Murray

Judicial impartiality — and within that, an absence of bias — is at the heart of the Australian judicial system and central to how judges see themselves. But while serving and retired judges of the High Court have had a lot to say about when judicial bias arises, they have (with some notable exceptions, as noted in the ALRC Judicial Impartiality Report, p 234) said little publicly about how such matters should be raised with and considered by the courts. Until now.

In QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 15 (‘QYFM’), judges of the High Court not only clarified the law on apprehended bias as it applies to a judge who was previously involved in the prosecution of a party, but also took the opportunity to set out their views on the processes for determining issues of bias raised in multi-member courts (such as Courts of Appeal, Full Courts, or the High Court itself).

Aaron Moss

On 22 May 2023, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Mortimer CJ, Moshinsky and Banks-Smith JJ) delivered judgment in Yunupingu on behalf of the Gumatj Clan or Estate Group v Commonwealth of Australia [2023] FCAFC 75 (Yunupingu), a decision regarding the intersection between native title and constitutional law.  

This post explores aspects of the Court's decision, and outlines their significance for public lawyers more generally.  

Josh Gibson

On 15 February 2023, the High Court (the Court) delivered its judgment in Unions NSW v New South Wales [2023] HCA 4 (Unions NSW). Unions NSW was brought by way of special case in the original jurisdiction of the Court. Two key provisions of the Electoral Funding Act 2018 (NSW) (the EF Act), sections 29(11) and 35, were challenged on the ground they impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of communication (the implied freedom). Two weeks before the hearing of Unions NSW, the New South Wales (NSW) Parliament passed the Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, which repealed section 35 of the EF Act. This raised significant questions about whether a plaintiff retains standing to challenge a provision if that provision is repealed after the case commences.

Sanmati Verma

In its important judgment in Pearson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] FCAFC 203, the Full Court of the Federal Court found that an aggregate sentence of imprisonment did not constitute a single ‘term of imprisonment for 12 months or more,’ and therefore did not attract the operation of the mandatory visa cancellation power at s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

This post discusses the Full Court’s decision in Pearson, the immediate legislative response by way of the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Act 2023 (Cth), and the implications of that response – particularly for the people taken back into immigration detention as a result.

Stephen McDonald

In this post, I offer a critique of one aspect of the reasoning of the majority judges in the Commonwealth v AJL20 (‘AJL20’), where it was held that AJL20’s detention was, at all times, lawfully permitted and required by the Migration Act, notwithstanding the failure of Commonwealth officers to comply with the duty to remove him as soon as reasonably practicable.

Essentially, the majority reasoning permits and requires detention by the executive to continue, even though the purposes for which detention can occur are constitutionally limited, and even though the detention exceeds what is reasonably necessary to give effect to the permissible purposes established by the Migration Act. I argue that, in construing the Migration Act in this way, the majority in AJL20 have implicitly given it an operation that authorises and requires continuing executive detention in excess of constitutional limits if officers of the executive have failed to comply with other duties imposed on them by the Act.