Dr Stephen Tully

Dr Stephen Tully speaks at 2018 ADLA Conference

Dr Stephen Tully has made a presentation about recent developments in international criminal law and practice as relevant to Australian legal practitioners. Organised by Nyman Gibson Miralis, the Australian Defence Lawyers Alliance (ADLA) Conference for 2018 was held in Sydney on 23 March and topics included advocacy, Commonwealth sentencing, mental health and the media. Stephen’s presentation is available here. 

Pro Bono Judicial Review Training

On 23 January 2018 Dr Stephen Tully, together with Nicholas Poynder of Frederick Jordan Chambers, Laura Free of Victoria Legal Aid, David Burke of Lander and Rogers Lawyers and Nadine Darling from the Refugee Advice & Casework Service (RACS), conducted a workshop on the judicial review of fast track decision-making by the Immigration Assessment Authority. Attended by some 27 solicitors and barristers, the workshop was the final step in an online programme established in Victoria and now made available in NSW. The training complements a current initiative of RACS - Justice for Refugees, or J4R – which engages barristers to advise on refugee matters and undertake judicial review applications before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The importance of decision notification: Dr Stephen Tully wins in visa cancellation case

Dr Stephen Tully of Chambers and Sally Hunt, Solicitor Director of Supra Legal, successfully overturned a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which rejected as late a merits review application lodged by their client concerning a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection not to revoke a prior visa cancellation decision.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection purported to notify the client of this decision in a letter which omitted certain information. The tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction, and proceedings were commenced before the Federal Court of Australia.

The parties agreed to remit the tribunal’s decision for reconsideration because the client had not been correctly notified of the delegate’s decision as required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). 

International Law Developments in Australia

Dr Stephen Tully contributed a report on international legal developments within Australia over the past year for the American Bar Association’s Section of International Law annual publication Year in Review. Their report can be found in (2017) 51 International Legal Developments Year in Review: 2016 at 579-82.

Dr Stephen Tully helps to secure a second chance for refugee applicant

Dr Stephen Tully worked pro bono with Liz Simpson, Ali Mojtahedi and Olivia Todhunter of the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre in FTYC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.

In December 2016, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed a decision to refuse to grant a protection visa to an applicant on character grounds, because she had a substantial criminal record and visa refusal was considered to be the preferable decision. The applicant was arrested upon her arrival into Australia in 2010, was convicted and sentenced, and was being held in immigration detention pending deportation.

However, Australia owed non-refoulement obligations to her under international law and she faced the prospect of indefinite detention. Following a hearing before the Federal Court of Australia in June, the parties agreed to remit this matter to the tribunal for reconsideration.

Truly a team effort by all involved with a fantastic outcome for a very deserving client.

Dr Stephen Tully: 'Extradition: the China Choice'

New article by Dr Stephen Tully for the ANU Asia and the Pacific Policy Society Policy Forum:

Western countries like Australia face particular challenges when seeking to extradite individuals to China. Many countries are party to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty. Under this treaty, it is unnecessary to prove that individuals “will” be sentenced to death; it is sufficient that there is “real risk” that an individual would face the death penalty. The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee requested Australia to protect individuals from removal to China without adequate assurances that they would not be executed. To enforce an individual’s return would constitute violations by Australia of that individual’s human rights.