Behrooz v Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

PDF
Word
Highlights
Notes
Overview Full Text
Details
Case Agency Issuance Number Published Date

Behrooz v Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] HCA 36

Tags

No tags available

Case

Behrooz v Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] HCA 36

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAGLEESON CJ,McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJMAHRAN BEHROOZ  APPELLANTANDSECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS & ORS  RESPONDENTSBehrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs[2004] HCA 366 August 2004A255/2003ORDERAppeal dismissed.  Appellant to pay costs of first respondent.On appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia Representation:J W K Burnside QC with J P Manetta for the appellant (instructed by Jeremy Moore & Associates)D M J Bennett QC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, with M A Perry for the first and second respondents (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)No appearance for the third and fourth respondentsIntervenerD S Mortimer SC with J K Kirk intervening on behalf of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (instructed by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission)Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSBehrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous AffairsImmigration – Appellant charged with offence of escape by unlawful non-citizen from immigration detention contrary to s 197A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Appellant sought issue of witness summonses pursuant to Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) seeking production of documentary material relating to conditions and complaints about conditions at detention centre – Whether material sought by witness summonses could have assisted appellant in his defence – Whether, by reason of conditions at detention centre, it could be said that appellant did not...

Continue reading the full case

Case content preview

Tags

No tags available

Case

Behrooz v Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] HCA 36

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAGLEESON CJ,McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJMAHRAN BEHROOZ  APPELLANTANDSECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS & ORS  RESPONDENTSBehrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs[2004] HCA 366 August 2004A255/2003ORDERAppeal dismissed.  Appellant to pay costs of first respondent.On appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia Representation:J W K Burnside QC with J P Manetta for the appellant (instructed by Jeremy Moore & Associates)D M J Bennett QC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, with M A Perry for the first and second respondents (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)No appearance for the third and fourth respondentsIntervenerD S Mortimer SC with J K Kirk intervening on behalf of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (instructed by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission)Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSBehrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous AffairsImmigration – Appellant charged with offence of escape by unlawful non-citizen from immigration detention contrary to s 197A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Appellant sought issue of witness summonses pursuant to Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) seeking production of documentary material relating to conditions and complaints about conditions at detention centre – Whether material sought by witness summonses could have assisted appellant in his defence – Whether, by reason of conditions at detention centre, it could be said that appellant did not...