NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37

Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Immigration detention – Indefinite detention without judicial order – Where plaintiff stateless Rohingya Muslim having well-founded fear of persecution in Myanmar – Where plaintiff's bridging visa cancelled following criminal conviction – Where following release from criminal custody plaintiff taken into immigration detention under s 189 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("Act") – Where plaintiff's application for protection visa refused and finally determined – Where ss 198(1) and 198(6) of Act imposed duty upon officers of Department administering Act to remove plaintiff from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable – Where s 196(1) of Act required plaintiff to be kept in immigration detention until removed from Australia, deported, or granted visa – Where attempts by Department to remove plaintiff from Australia unsuccessful as at date of hearing – Where no real prospect of removal of plaintiff from Australia becoming practicable in reasonably foreseeable future – Where plaintiff sought writ of habeas corpus requiring release from detention forthwith – Whether application for leave to reopen constitutional holding in Al Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562 should be granted – Whether constitutional holding in Al Kateb should be overruled – Whether detention of plaintiff punitive contrary to Ch III of Constitution – Whether separation of plaintiff from Australian community pending removal constitutes legitimate and non-punitive purpose – Whether detention of plaintiff reasonably capable of being seen as necessary for legitimate and non punitive purpose.

Immigration – Unlawful non-citizens – Detention pending removal from Australia – Where no real prospect of removal of plaintiff from Australia becoming practicable in reasonably foreseeable future – Whether detention of plaintiff authorised by ss 189(1) and 196(1) of Act – Whether application for leave to reopen statutory construction holding in Al-Kateb should be granted.

Words and phrases – "alien", "conservative cautionary principle", "deportation", "deprivation of liberty", "executive detention", "habeas corpus", "indefinite detention", "judicial function", "judicial power of the Commonwealth", "legitimate and non-punitive purpose", "Lim principle", "penal", "power to exclude", "practicable", "punishment", "punitive", "real prospect", "reasonably capable of being seen as necessary", "reasonably foreseeable future", "removal from Australia", "separation from the Australian community", "unlawful non-citizen".

Constitution – s 51(xix), Ch III.
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – ss 3A, 189, 196, 198.

Dr James Stellios appeared for the Applicant.

Reasons for the High Court’s decision can be found here.

Attorney-General (Cth) v Huynh [2023] HCA 13

Constitutional law — Judicial power — Federal jurisdiction — Where person convicted of offence against law of Commonwealth in state court — Where person sought order for inquiry into conviction — Where person sought to have matter referred to New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal — Where application unsuccessful — Where person sought judicial review — Whether provisions of Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) (CAR Act) applied by their own force to conviction by New South Wales court for offence under law of Commonwealth — Whether provisions of CAR Act picked up by s 68(1) of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) — (CTH) Criminal Code Act 1995 ss 11.5, 307.11 — (NSW) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 ss 76, 77, 78, 79, 86 — (NSW) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s 5.

Dr James Stellios appeared as amicus curiae.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Vunilagi v The Queen [2023] HCA 24

Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Jurisdiction vested in Territory courts – Institutional integrity of Territory courts – Where s 68BA inserted into Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) in response to COVID-19 pandemic – Where s 68BA(3) allowed Supreme Court of Australian Capital Territory ("ACT") to make order for trial by judge alone for previously excluded indictable offences if satisfied order would ensure orderly and expeditious discharge of Court business and in interests of justice – Where s 68BA(4) required judge to provide written notice of proposed order under s 68BA(3) – Where no requirement for election or consent by accused – Where Justice of Supreme Court proposed to and did order trial by judge alone despite appellant's submissions opposing order – Where appellant tried and convicted under ss 54 and 60 of Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – Whether s 68BA(4) substantially impaired institutional integrity of Territory courts as function conferred incompatible with position of Territory court as repository of federal jurisdiction.

Constitutional law (Cth) – Trial by jury – Where prior to self-government Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) picked up and applied in ACT as surrogate federal law – Where following self-government Commonwealth law provided Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) shall be taken to be enacted by ACT Legislative Assembly and may be amended and repealed – Where subsequent ACT law provided Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) to be treated as an Act passed by ACT Legislative Assembly – Where ss 54 and 60 of Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) were indictable offences – Whether ss 54 and 60 were laws of the Commonwealth within meaning of s 80 of Constitution – Whether "any law of the Commonwealth" within meaning of s 80 of Constitution includes laws of ACT Legislative Assembly as "subordinate legislature" – Whether miscarriage of justice as trial on indictment was not by jury contrary to s 80 of Constitution – Whether R v Bernasconi (1915) 19 CLR 629 should be re-opened or overruled.

Words and phrases – "amend or repeal", "case management", "Ch III court", "COVID-19 emergency period", "gatekeeping function", "independent body politic", "institutional integrity", "interests of justice", "judge alone trial", "Kable principle", "law of the Commonwealth", "overruling constitutional precedent", "peace, order and good government of the Territory", "picked up and applied", "plenary power", "proposed order", "prudential approach", "self-government", "statutory fiction", "subordinate legislature", "taken to be an enactment", "trial on indictment".

Constitution, Ch III, ss 80, 111, 122. ACT Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Act 1988 (Cth), s 12. Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth), ss 7, 8, 22, 34. 

Dr James Stellios appeared for the appellant.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Vella v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2019] HCA 38

Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power – Constitution – Ch III – State Parliament – Institutional integrity of State courts – Where s 5(1) of Crimes (Serious Crime Prevention Orders) Act 2016 (NSW) provides that State court may make order if satisfied that specified person has been convicted of serious criminal offence or involved in serious crime related activity and satisfied that reasonable grounds to believe that making of order would protect public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by that person in serious crime related activities – Where s 6(1) of Act provides that order against that specified person may contain such prohibitions, restrictions, requirements and other provisions as court considers appropriate for purpose of protecting public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by that person in serious crime related activities – Where proceedings under Act are civil proceedings – Whether making order exercise of judicial power – Whether powers conferred by Act incompatible with State court's role as repository of federal judicial power – Whether powers conferred by Act substantially impair institutional integrity of State court.

Dr. James Stellios represented the defendant.

The reasons for the decision can be found here.