The "Judge Vasta bill" has passed parliament - 16 Nov 2023

In the words of the Beatles we don’t care too much for money…

But you know what we do care for? You telling others about our newsletter.

Refer others using the link below to earn rewards!

Daily wrap  

• Labor to criminalise visa breaches in response to release of immigration detainees | Australian immigration and asylum | The Guardian

   

  • Sparks fly in Canberra after High Court decision to release detainees

     

  • Detainees released without visas after High Court decision in immigration revelation - ABC News

     

  • Immigration detention: Labor to rush through emergency legislation after high court ruling | Australian immigration and asylum | The Guardian

     

• The “Judge Vasta bill” has passed parliament granting Division 2 FCFOA judges the same judicial immunity as other federal court judges

   

  • A copy of the bill can be found here - Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023 – Parliament of Australia

   

• Whistleblower David McBride’s trial delayed slightly over key public interest argument | Australian military | The Guardian

   

  • Commonwealth argues against handing more intel to whistleblower as trial delayed

     

• Two HCA judgments handed down yesterday

   

  • HCF v. The Queen [2023] HCA 35 - judgment summary

    • Catchwords - Criminal practice – Appeal – Miscarriage of justice – Juror or jury misconduct – Where following trial by jury appellant convicted of six sexual offences – Where after entry of verdicts juror delivered note causing trial judge to authorise Sheriff to conduct investigation under s 70(7) of Jury Act 1995 (Qld) – Where investigation revealed conduct involving juror undertaking internet research about definitions of and sentences for certain offences, juror informing other members of jury about research, and other members of jury not informing trial judge – Where conduct contrary to directions of trial judge – Whether conduct gave rise to miscarriage of justice.

       

  • McNamara v. The King [2023] HCA 36 - judgment summary

    • Catchwords - Evidence – Criminal trial – Joint trial – Discretionary exclusion rule – Where appellant and co-accused convicted of murder and supplying large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine – Where appellant sought to lead evidence at trial that co-accused admitted participation in several homicides and other criminal violence to establish defence of duress – Where evidence excluded because unfairly prejudicial to co-accused – Where s 135(a) of Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) permits court to refuse to admit evidence if probative value substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice to "a party" – Whether "a party" includes co-accused in joint criminal trial.

     

• Federal Court blocks part of Santos' multi-billion-dollar pipeline in latest setback against Barossa project

   

• Commonwealth settles with asylum seeker over PTSD-triggered handcuff refusal that led to missed medical attention

   

• Free speech advocates at odds with faith groups over NSW hate speech law overhaul | New South Wales | The Guardian

   

• As wait times at Victoria's civil tribunal blow out, lawyers say some people are 'giving up'

   

• Paedophile John Millwood arranged selling of art collection from jail to deny his victim compensation, court hears - ABC News

   

Editor’s picks

• A Frozen Constitution in a Sunburnt Country, The Loss of Another Australian Referendum - Anne Twomey

   

• Judging Kathleen Folbigg - Jeremy Gans • Inside Story - A High Court decision has added to concerns about jury behaviour that were passed over by a series of appeal judges

   

• What’s in a Name? Fairness and a Reasonable Opportunity: AB v Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission - Matthew Groves - Sydney Law Review

   

  • “In AB v Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission, the High Court of Australia will consider the level of disclosure that the rules of fairness require an investigative body to observe when finalising a draft report. The central issue is the tension between the duty to provide adverse material (enough for an affected person to have a fair chance to respond) and the need for the investigator to withhold some material (enough for it to still be able to discharge its function).

    This question has arisen as a narrow one of construction under s 162(3) of the Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2011 (Vic), but it raises the age-old dilemma of the rules of fairness — how to protect the interests of someone who may be adversely affected by administrative action without unduly impairing the functions of the officials responsible for that action. This column argues that the dilemma may not be able to be resolved beyond the

    statement of broad principles.”

   

• William & Lonsdale Podcast - EPISODE 44 : THE HON MICHAEL KIRBY AC CMG PART 1

   

• Photos from event to celebrate the Senior Counsel appointments in and for the State of Victoria 8 November

   

Our newsletter is free. All we ask from you is to spread the word about our newsletter (we’d especially love if you talked about us on your socials - we’re on Linkedin, Instagram and Twitter)!

The Headnote team

For best viewing use the read online link at the top of this email.

For feedback and enquiries - [email protected]