Economists from Monash University, Dr Vinod Mishra and Professor Russell Smyth, have published a paper in the Australian Journal of Political Science examining the effect of barrister gender on appeal outcomes in the High Court of Australia. According to the abstract:
We examine the relationship between gender of the barrister and appeal outcomes on the High Court of Australia. We find that an appellant represented in oral argument by a female barrister, opposed to a respondent represented in oral argument by a male barrister, is less likely to receive a High Court justice’s vote. However, we also find that the appellant disadvantage of having a female barrister present oral argument is (partially) offset in the case of liberal justices and on panels having a higher proportion of female justices. The extent to which the disadvantage is offset, and potentially turns from being a disadvantage to an advantage, depends on the degree to which the justice is liberal and the proportion of female justices on the panel.
For non-subscribers, an earlier version of the paper is available here. Continue reading
The Hon Michael Kirby’s High Court career (from 1996 to 2009) has been bookended by inquiries undertaken for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights into human rights initiatives and abuses of foreign states: milestones that underscore his commitment to and involvement in United Nations bodies particularly related to AIDS and human rights. In 1996 he reported for the final time on recommendations for a human rights based governance model for Cambodia, then emerging from years of conflict and human rights abuse. His focus then was to ensure that a new government created a political and legal regime that protected internationally recognised human rights. This week a report authored by former Justice Kirby was released that detailed the current and historic widespread human rights abuses committed by the government of North Korea against its own people. Kirby concluded that the abuses and crimes against humanity were perpetrated by the government, institutions and policies of the state. Continue reading
Further to my brief post two weeks ago linking to Grahame Orr’s piece on the WA Senate Election case on The Conversation, Professor Anne Twomey of the University of Sydney has posted ‘Missing Votes Means It’s Back to the Polls for Western Australia’ late yesterday on The Conversation. There is also a longer version of this post available on Sydney’s Constitutional Critique blog that goes into more detail about the facts of the case, the workings of the Court of Disputed Returns, and the decision itself. While several high profile electoral law cases have ended up before the High Court in recent years (Unions NSW v New South Wales  HCA 58; Rowe v Electoral Commissioner  HCA 46; Roach v Electoral Commissioner  HCA 43; Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission  HCA 41), these have concerned constitutional issues around voting rights (Roach and Rowe) the registration of political parties (Mulholland) or electoral funding (Unions NSW), rather than the contestation of electoral results themselves before the Court of Disputed Returns. Given the rarity of its operation, it is all the more helpful to have timely expert commentary on the workings of the Court of Disputed Returns.
Twomey notes an issue that many readers will have considered: can Hayne J’s decision be appealed to the Full Court? Continue reading
At Friday’s special leave hearings, the High Court only granted leave to appeal in one case decided by the NSW Court of Appeal, a corporations law matter. However, the Court also ruled that it will hear and decide another case that is before the NSW Court of Appeal but which that court is yet to rule upon. The case is an ongoing prosecution of three people for committing the NSW crime of consorting. Even though there hasn’t been a trial so far, the matter was before the NSW Court of Appeal to determine whether or not the provision setting out the offence is invalid. Friday’s ruling means that the High Court will now be the first and final court to rule on that question.
What is the challenge about? Continue reading
By Megan Driscoll and Houston Ash
Plaintiff M76/2013 Case Page
Dozens of people who have been found to be genuine refugees remain in immigration detention in Australia because they are the subjects of secret adverse security assessments made by the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). Plaintiff M76/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship  HCA 53 was a case brought by one of these refugees, challenging her continued detention under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). It was of particular interest to High Court watchers because the plaintiff sought to challenge the correctness of the controversial 2004 High Court decision of Al-Kateb v Godwin  HCA 37. In that case, a majority of the High Court held that the Migration Act could authorise the indefinite detention of ‘unlawful non-citizens’. In the event, a majority of the High Court in Plaintiff M76 chose not to consider the correctness of Al-Kateb. However, Plainitff M76 nonetheless sheds some light on the prospect of Al-Kateb being overturned in the future. It also ties together two recent decisions of the High Court relating to Australia’s asylum seeker assessment procedures.
Plaintiff M76’s entry into Australia
The plaintiff in this case is a Sri Lankan Tamil woman, known to us as Plaintiff M76, who entered Australia by boat at Christmas Island in May 2010 seeking asylum. Under the Migration Act, she was classified as an ‘unlawful non-citizen’ and, having arrived in Australia at an ‘excised offshore place’, she was also an ‘offshore entry person’ (now ‘unauthorised maritime arrival’). Section 189(3) of the Migration Act required officers of the Department of Immigration to immediately detain her, and under s 196(1) she must remain in immigration detention until she is removed from Australia, deported, granted a visa, or she is dealt with for the purpose of removing her to a regional processing country. Section 198(2) of the Migration Act requires officers to remove Plaintiff M76 from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable provided that she either has not made a valid application for a substantive visa or her visa application has been finally determined. Continue reading
In a joint press release, the Prime Minister, Employment Minister and Attorney-General today made their expected announcement of a new royal commission into trade union governance and corruption. The announcement revealed the new commissioner:
The Government will also recommend that The Honourable John Dyson Heydon AC QC be appointed as Commissioner to lead this inquiry. A former High Court Judge, His Honour has a distinguished legal career and I am pleased to confirm his willingness to accept this appointment.
Dyson Heydon is the most recent judge to leave the High Court, reaching the constitutionally mandated retirement age of 70 on 1 March last year.
In some respects, the role will be a familiar one for Mr Heydon. Continue reading
I noted in December last year that the issue of bank fees was back before Gordon J in the Federal Court. Today, Gordon J has handed down her decision in Paciocco v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited  FCA 52. Her original decision on the matter, Andrews v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group  FCA 1376, was appealed to to the High Court in Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited  HCA 30. The case was remitted back to Gordon J. Somewhat confusingly, Paciocco is another representative plaintiff but the action is still the same. Interestingly, the outcome of Paciocco is very similar to the trial decision in Andrews. In the trial decision in Andrews, Gordon J held that only late payment fees were illegal penalties, whereas honour fees, dishonour fees, overlimit fees and non-payment fees were not illegal penalties. Despite the High Court’s extension of the doctrine of penalties in 2012, the outcome of Paciocco was identical: only late payment fees were penalties. This must be a relief to the bank and to other commercial entities, but a disappointment to the consumers. Continue reading
By Anna Dziedzic
Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission Case Page
In Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission  HCA 39, the High Court split 4:3 on the application of the ‘principle of legality’ — a rule of statutory interpretation which requires parliament to use clear statutory language if it intends to restrict fundamental rights or depart from general principles of law. This post attempts to trace whether the differences between the members of the Court reflect merely a different interpretation of the NSW crime legislation in question, or lie at the deeper level of the rationale and operation of the principle of legality.
NSW’s criminal assets recovery legislation
Father and son Jason Lee and Seong Won Lee were arrested for money laundering, drugs and firearms offences. After they were charged — but before the completion of their trial — the NSW Crime Commission applied to the NSW Supreme Court for various orders under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW).
This Act sets out a scheme for the confiscation of property if the Supreme Court finds it ‘more probable than not’ that a person has engaged in serious crime related activity (s 3(a)). There is no requirement for the person to have been convicted of a criminal offence.
Section 31D authorises the Crime Commission to seek orders for the examination of a person about the person’s affairs or those of another. Such examinations are to be held before the Supreme Court. During an examination, the person must provide information even if it tends to incriminate him or her, but such information is not admissible in criminal proceedings (s 31A). In other words, the legislation abrogates the privilege against self-incrimination but provides ‘direct use’ immunity.
The Crime Commission applied for an order that Jason Lee and Seong Won Lee be examined on oath before the Court. The Judge hearing the application refused to make the order on the grounds that it would expose the Lees to questioning about matters relevant to the criminal charges they were facing, creating a real risk of interference in their ongoing criminal trials. The NSW Court of Appeal overturned this decision. Jason and Seong Won Lee then appealed to the High Court. Continue reading
Professor Graeme Orr at the University of Queensland recently published ‘In Whose Interest? The High Court and the WA Senate Vote’ on The Conversation, covering Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston. Orr’s piece is an incisive and clear explanation of what is a fairly convoluted case, and is very much worth a read. Orr also notes that a decision from Justice Hayne is expected to be handed down today, with two likely results: either Justice Hayne will declare the election void, or the case will continue, ‘with further legal argument and the parties scrapping over disputed ballots in the coming weeks or months’. As of posting, no media organisations have reported on the decision, but we’ll post links to news stories in the comments section when they do.