Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants were refused a visa under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a visa partly on the basis of discrepancies between the statutory declaration and the appellants' oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">s 424a of the act , read with s 441a , requires that an applicant be given written notice of particulars of any information that would be a reason or a part of the reason for affirming a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief should be denied on discretionary grounds for lack of a convention nexus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 604">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 604">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 604">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 604">applicant claiming religious persecution in china</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 604">applicant disbelieved by the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 604">tribunal disregarding the applicant's conduct in australia as intended to support her claims, but then using the same conduct to affirm the delegate's decision on the basis that the applicant would not maintain her faith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FMCA 604">"what if i am wrong" consideration required by the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FMCA 604">tribunal failed to consider what the applicant's position would be in china as a committed christian</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FMCA 604">jurisdictional error established.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">appeal from decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether refugee review tribunal failed to comply with s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) in respect of provision of information to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether tribunal asked wrong question or applied wrong test in considering claim of fear of persecution on religious grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether tribunal denied appellant procedural fairness having regard to the manner of examination of independent country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">lapse of time between entry into australia and bringing of application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">consideration of s 91r(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">where appellant converted to christianity while in australia practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">leave to amend notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether respondents prejudiced by granting of leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether exceptional circumstances required to be shown by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether allowance to be granted by the court to permit recently published judgments to be understood and applied by legal profession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">grounds not raised before federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">delegate of the first respondent refused to grant appellant protection visa because not satisfied of the genuineness of appellant's conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant invited by tribunal to give evidence relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant gave evidence addressed to the delegate's concern regarding the genuineness of his conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa on the basis that appellant's claims were not credible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether tribunal failed to notify the appellant adequately of the issues to which its reasoning processes were directed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether failure of tribunal to ask the appellant to address issues that it considered might be important amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] FMCA 261">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] FMCA 261">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] FMCA 261">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] FMCA 261">applicant claiming persecution in china based upon his practice of falun gong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] FMCA 261">whether the rrt overlooked a relevant consideration considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2006] FMCA 261">applicant claimed to have suffered memory loss following torture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2006] FMCA 261">whether the rrt failed to take that claim into account considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2006] FMCA 261">whether the rrt breached s.91r(3) of the migration act 1958 (cth) by taking into account the applicant's conduct in australia considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2006] FMCA 261">whether the rrt breached s.424a of the migration act in not giving written notice of that information considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">diesel fuel rebate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">rebate allowable where fuel used "in mining operations" or "other operations connected with mining"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">whether generation of electricity and reticulation of water in towns adjacent to mining sufficiently connected with mining operations.  customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">diesel fuel rebate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">rebate allowable where fuel for use by purchaser "at residential premises"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">whether use confined to use of the purchaser.  customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">diesel fuel rebate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">rebate allowable where fuel for use "at a hospital"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">whether, where electricity is generated, the generation has to be on or close to the hospital grounds.  customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">diesel fuel rebate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">rebate allowable where fuel for use "in primary production" or in operations connected with "the cultivation or gathering in of crops"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">whether generation of electricity and reticulation of water in agricultural areas is sufficiently connected with primary production operations.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">jurisdiction of court on appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">whether all facts being agreed the question whether a case falls within or without statutory provision is a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">question whether sufficient connexion exists involves a question of fact and degree not conferring jurisdiction on court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">tribunal's application of s.91r(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">whether tribunal had regard to applicant's conduct in assessing credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">whether s.91r(3) requires "sole" or "dominant" purpose test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">whether tribunal applied "dominant" purpose test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">tribunal's decision record read fairly</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">inference drawn that tribunal did not use conduct in australia in making adverse credibility finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">section 91r(3) requires "sole" purpose test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">tribunal applied "dominant" purpose test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">relief granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 152">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 152">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 152">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 152">concession by the minister that the tribunal applied the wrong test for the purposes of s.91r(3) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 152">that test is a sole purpose test not a dominant purpose test.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 91">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 91">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 91">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 91">applicant claiming persecution in china as a falun gong practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 91">tribunal failing to make findings regarding the applicant's conduct in australia required for the purposes of s.91r(3) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 91">jurisdictional error established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 91">whether the court should withhold relief in the exercise of discretion considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 44">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 44">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 44">bangladeshi applicant claiming political persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 44">claims not made in visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 44">delay in raising them before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 44">tribunal rejected claims as recent invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 44">whether conclusion affected by fraud of migration agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 44">fraudulent conduct not established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 44">no jurisdictional error by tribunal in consideration of corroborative documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 44">no duties on tribunal to inquire or obtain translations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 44">no jurisdictional error in tribunal's application of s.91r(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">citing from="[2009] FMCA 44">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1606">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1606">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1606">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1606">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1606">application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal affirming decision not to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1606">citizen of china claiming well-founded fear of persecution for reason of being a falun gong practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1606">whether tribunal failed to comply with migration act 1958 (cth) s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1606">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1606">interpreter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1606">where no transcript of hearing provided</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1606">whether tribunal failed to comply with migration act 1958 (cth) s.91r(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1606">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1606">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1491">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1491">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1491">whether refugee review tribunal's decision affected by jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1351">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1351">application to review decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1351">whether tribunal had regard to conduct of the applicant in australia contrary to s.91r(3) of the migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1351">whether failure to comply with s.424a of the migration act.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] RRTA 1170" id="cs0">Different interpretations of s 91R(3) have been taken in the Courts, in particular whether the section imports a "sole purpose" test ( SAAS v MIMA [2002] FCA 726 ; (2002) 124 FCR 182 (not disturbed on appeal); SZIAT v MIAC [2008] FMCA 44 (Nicholls FM, 30 January 2008) upheld on appeal and SZIAT v MIAC [2008] FCA 766 (Gordon J, 26 May 2008) at [33]) or a "dominant purpose" test ( SZJZN v MIAC [2008] FCA 519 ; (2008) 169 FCR 1 at [35] ; however, this has been treated as obiter dicta in SZMBL v MIAC [2009] FMCA 44 (Smith FM, 10 February 2009) at [112] (not disturbed on appeal: SZMBL v MIAC [2009] FCA 622 (North J, 22 May 2009)) and SZNAB v MIAC [2009] FMCA 152 (Driver FM, 3 June 2009) at [7]) or where conduct has mixed motives, whether the conduct may not be taken into account either as supporting or as disproving a refugee claim, unless a motive of strengthening the claim is positively excluded ( SZMPJ v MIAC [2008] FMCA 1640). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] RRTA 766" id="cs1">Different interpretations of s 91R(3) have been taken in the Courts, in particular whether the section imports a "sole purpose" test ( SAAS v MIMA [2002] FCA 726 ; (2002) 124 FCR 182 (not disturbed on appeal); SZIAT v MIAC [2008] FMCA 44 (Nicholls FM, 30 January 2008) upheld on appeal and SZIAT v MIAC [2008] FCA 766 (Gordon J, 26 May 2008) at [33]) or a "dominant purpose" test ( SZJZN v MIAC [2008] FCA 519 ; (2008) 169 FCR 1 at [35] ; however, this has been treated as obiter dicta in SZMBL v MIAC [2009] FMCA 44 (Smith FM, 10 February 2009) at [112] (not disturbed on appeal: SZMBL v MIAC [2009] FCA 622 (North J, 22 May 2009)) and SZNAB v MIAC [2009] FMCA 152 (Driver FM, 3 June 2009) at [7]. ) or where conduct has mixed motives, whether the conduct may not be taken into account either as supporting or as disproving a refugee claim, unless a motive of strengthening the claim is positively excluded ( SZMPJ v MIAC [2008] FMCA 1640). The matter is currently under consideration in the High Court in SZJGV v MIAC and was heard in that court in May 2009. However, in light of the Tribunal's findings in this matter and the fact that the first application for a protection visa was made more than four years ago, the Tribunal does not consider it appropriate further to delay the present matter until the High Court hands down its decision. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 583" id="cs2">In the current case, the Minister's written submissions refer to SZJZN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 519 (" SZJZN" ) per Madgwick J and appear to draw from what was said at [35]: "35 In my opinion the problem referred to can be adequately overcome, and the real mischief that concerned the legislation's framers met, by interpreting "the purpose" as meaning "the dominant purpose". The Second Reading speech gives a sharper account of the mischief the subsection was aimed at than the Explanatory Memorandum and it supports the approach I favour. The context generally speaks against giving the statute an over-literal interpretation. The Minister refers to SZJZN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 169 FCR 1 ; [2008] FCA 519 at [34] to [35] where Madgwick J observed that "the purpose" in s.91R(3) could be interpreted as meaning "the dominant purpose" to reflect the legislature's intention. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 152" id="cs3">The matter came before me for a show cause hearing on 26 February 2009. At that time, my view was that the Tribunal did not err in relation to its application of s.91R(3). In relation to the application of the dominant purpose test, I was guided by the decision of his Honour Madgwick J in SZJZN v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 519 at [35] : In my opinion the problem referred to can be adequately overcome, and the real mischief that concerned the legislation's framers met, by interpreting "the purpose" as meaning "the dominant purpose". The Second Reading speech gives a sharper account of the mischief the subsection was aimed at than the Explanatory Memorandum and it supports the approach I favour. The context generally speaks against giving the statute an over-literal interpretation.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] HCATrans 103" id="cs4">It is a case called SZJZN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 519 ; 169 FCR 1 and there is some dicta, I think, of Justice Madgwick that suggests that dominant purpose is sufficient.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 91" id="cs5">Nor is there any evidence that the applicant claimed a subjective fear of persecution in China by reason of his alleged practice of Falun Gong in Australia. Accordingly, the first respondent submits that the alleged Falun Gong practice in Australia did not engage s 91R(3) and therefore this section did not require the Tribunal to make a finding of fact, or a finding as to the applicant's motives, in relation to it. Discretion to refuse relief If, contrary to the above submissions, the Court finds that the Tribunal breached s 91R(3) , the first respondent submits that the Court should exercise its discretion to refuse relief because the breach did not affect the outcome of the Tribunal decision (see SZLWI v MIAC [2008] FCA 1330 at [45] ; SZJZN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 519 at [41] ; SZMAN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FMCA 1351 at [31] - [38]; SZJHG v Minister for Immigration and Anor [2007] FMCA 2050 at [47] - [48]). The Tribunal took into account the applicant's conduct in Australia in the context of considering a possible sur place claim which was not articulated by the applicant, to the applicant's benefit. The Tribunal did not rely on the conduct in Australia to find against the applicant and would have come to the same conclusion if it had made a s 91R(3) finding and disregarded the conduct.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 44" id="cs6">In support of Ground 6, it was submitted that "on the proper construction of s 91R(3) , a decision-maker may only disregard conduct engaged in by a person in Australia if the sole purpose for which the person engaged in the conduct in Australia was to strengthen the person's claim to be a refugee" (citing SZJZN v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship (2008) 169 FCR 1 , [2008] FCA 519 at [32] and [35]). The Tribunal failed to appreciate this, and it "failed to consider that the applicant's conduct in Australia may have had multiple purposes" . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] RRTA 529" id="cs7">The Tribunal also understands that when determining whether conduct has been engaged in 'otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person's claim to be a refugee' the decision-maker may only disregard conduct engaged in for the dominant purpose of strengthening a refugee claim ( SZJZN v MIAC [2008] FCA 519 (Madgwick J, 18 April 2008) at [35]). Findings as to whether an applicant has engaged in activities for the purpose contemplated by s.91R(3) are findings of fact ( SZKHD v MIAC [2008] FCA 112 (Collier J, 19 February 2008) at [31]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1606" id="cs8">Mr Godwin referred the Court to SZJHG v Minister for Immigration  Anor [23] at [47], SZMAN v Minister for Immigration  Anor [24] at [31]-[38], SZJZN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [25] at [40] and SZLWI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [26] at [45]-[46] in support of the proposition that the Court should exercise its discretion and refuse to grant relief in the circumstances. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1491" id="cs9">Mr Godwin, counsel for the First Respondent referred the Court to SZJZN v the Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 519 ; (2008) 101 ALD 284 (" SZJZN ") where Madgwick J said at [35], obiter, that " the purpose " referred to in s.91R(3)(b) for which the Applicant entered into conduct in Australia meant " the dominant purpose ". Madgwick J stated at [32] as follows: " It cannot, in my opinion, be the position that, where an applicant ha multiple purposes for engaging in conduct in Australia, no matter how relevantly unimportant the s.91R(3) purpose may be, its existence will prevent the decision-maker from having regard to it. " </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] RRTA 396" id="cs10">That said, regarding s.91R(3) of the Act, the Tribunal understands that when determining whether conduct has been engaged in 'otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person's claim to be a refugee' the decision-maker may only disregard conduct engaged in for the dominant purpose of strengthening a refugee claim ( SZJZN v MIAC [2008] FCA 519 (Madgwick J, 18 April 2008) at [35]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1351" id="cs11">Moreover in SZJZN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another [2008] FCA 519 ; [2008] FCA 519 ; (2008) 169 FCR 1 Madgwick J suggested (at [40]) that if, contrary to his view, " conduct " in s.91R(3) should be regarded as including ideas and beliefs motivating the conduct, the only " infraction " of s.91R(3) by the Tribunal " was in looking at such ideation with a view to considering whether it might assist the appellant in relation to his likely future conduct if returned to China, and coming to a negative conclusion ". It was however said to be plain that had no regard been had to such ideation, the application was in any case doomed to fail so that any error was immaterial. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] RRTA 190" id="cs12">Despite the provisions of s91R(3) of the Act, conduct which is taken partially with the intention of strengthening refugee claims may nevertheless be taken into consideration by the Tribunal SZJZN v MIAC [2008] FCA 519 .</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 65 Decision to grant or refuse to grant visa</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 417 Minister may substitute more favourable decision</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">notice of receipt of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where two notices have been issued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where second notice has been issued as a notice amending the first</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where second notice has been issued by a different minister to the first extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">first notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether discretion to issue notice was validly exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the statement of the conduct or acts or omissions of the person the subject of the request was sufficient to allow the minister to form the opinion which s 16(2)(a)(ii) of the extradition act 1988 (cth) required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">dual criminality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the minister needed to receive all the material provided by the extradition country in order validly to exercise his function in accordance with law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">relief to be granted in circumstances where notice has been found to be invalid extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">second notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where first notice has been found to be invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where detention of the person the subject of the request has become unlawful under ss 15 and 17 of the extradition act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether minister had power to issue amended notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the minister for justice and customs can exercise powers of attorney-general under s 16 of the extradition act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the statement of the conduct or acts or omissions of the person the subject of the request was sufficient to allow the minister to form the opinion which s 16(2)(a)(ii) of the extradition act required extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where notice of receipt of extradition request has been found to be deficient in respect of certain paragraphs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the notice is wholly or partly invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">possibility of severance of notice under s 46(2) of the acts interpretation act 1901 (cth) administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">division of portfolio responsibilities between two ministers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">effect of division</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether one minister authorised to exercise powers conferred by statute on the other</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether s 16 of the extradition act evinces a contrary intention for the purposes of s 19a(1) of the acts interpretation act  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">both notices deficient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">severance of portions of either notice not possible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">both notices wholly invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] ACTSC 28">the functions of the attorney-general are</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 68">mallard v the queen  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 68">appellant convicted of murder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 68">appellant petitioned for mercy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 68">attorney-general referred petition to court of criminal appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 68">whether non-disclosure of exculpatory evidence by prosecution denied appellant a fair trial or fair chance of acquittal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 68">scope of jurisdiction of court of criminal appeal on attorney-general's reference under s 140(1)(a) sentencing act 1995 (wa)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 68">duty to consider the "whole case"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 68">whether court of criminal appeal erred in refusing to consider evidence adduced at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 68">whether jury verdict unreasonable or unsupportable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 68">whether jury verdict could not be supported having regard to the evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 68">whether a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 68">whether a retrial should be ordered.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 68">new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 68">petition for mercy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 68">reference of whole case to court of criminal appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 68">scope of proceedings in full court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 8">ali v the queen  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 8">trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 8">miscarriage of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 8">competence of counsel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 8">joint trial of accused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 8">whether counsel should have applied for a separate trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 8">whether application would have succeeded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 8">whether accused disadvantaged by joint trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 8">whether counsel failed to object to evidence of bad character</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 8">whether counsel failed to advance alternative case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 8">whether accused deprived of a fair chance of acquittal.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 8">criminal trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 8">character of accused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 8">failure to object to evidence of bad character</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 8">whether objection would have succeeded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 8">whether evidence admissible for other purpose.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 45">dyers v the queen  criminal law and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 45">appeal against conviction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 45">indecent assault of minor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 45">whether trial judge erred in directions to jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 45">failure of defendant to call witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 45">delay in making complaint</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 45">longman v the queen [1989] hca 60 ; (1989) 168 clr 79 considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 45">unreasonable verdict</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 45">unsworn statement by defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 45">order for new trial.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 45">inferences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 45">criminal trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 45">whether inferences open from failure to call witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 45">application of jones v dunkel [1959] hca 8 ; (1959) 101 clr 298 to criminal trials.   gaudron and hayne jj. in 1999, the appellant was indicted, in the district court of new south wales, on a charge of indecently assaulting a 13 year old girl in 1988</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 45">11 years earlier. although the indictment alleged that the offence had occurred between specified dates, by the end of the prosecution case it was clear that it was alleged that the assault had occurred on the morning of 29 july 1988. in an unsworn statement at his trial, the appellant acknowledged that he had seen the complainant that morning, but he said that it was only in the company of her mother, and while he was otherwise engaged in meetings with others. the appellant's appointment diary was tendered in evidence. it recorded a number of appointments for the appellant during the day. no appointment with the complainant was recorded. there were, however, references to a meeting at 9.30 am with two other persons, a meeting between 1.00 pm and 3.00 pm with several other persons, including the complainant's mother, and what was described as a "processing session" with a ms tinkler between 9.30 am and 11.30 am in a room called the "energy conversion room". the complainant swore that the appellant had indecently assaulted her in that room at the end of a "processing session" with her in the morning of 29 july 1988.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">re patterson; ex parte taylor  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">naturalisation and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">meaning of "aliens" in s 51(xix)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">law empowering cancellation of visa of "non-citizen"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">whether such a law, applied to a british subject who has lived in australia for over 33 years, is a law with respect to naturalisation and aliens.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">external affairs power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">whether s 51 (xxix) supports application of s 501(3) of migration act 1958 (cth) to the prosecutor, a british subject who has lived in australia for over 33 years.   constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">meaning of "minister" in s 64 of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">whether parliamentary secretary constituted the "minister" for the purpose of s 64</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">whether parliamentary secretary constituted "the minister personally" for the purpose of s 501(4) of the migration act 1958 (cth).  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">power of minister to cancel a visa on character grounds under s 501(3) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">prosecutor had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more and accordingly had a "substantial criminal record"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">substantial criminal record grounds for failure of character test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">prosecutor could not possibly pass the character test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">respondent invited prosecutor to make representations to her to have the decision revoked under s 501c(4) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">only ground for revocation was that prosecutor passed the character test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">whether invitation to make representations evinced misunderstanding of nature of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">whether misunderstanding amounted to a constructive failure of jurisdiction. immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">power of minister to cancel a visa on character grounds under s 501(3) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">requirement that decision be in national interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">meaning of "national interest"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">whether minister in this case satisfied that decision in national interest.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application of chan v minister for immigration and ethnic affairs [1989] hca 62 ; (1989) 169 clr 379</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">appointment of judicial officers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">abolition of one set of inferior courts and substitution of another</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">policy to appoint stipendiary magistrates of former courts as magistrates of new courts unless unfit for judicial office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">decision not to appoint former stipendiary magistrate set aside for failure to accord natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">reconsideration of case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">change of appointment policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">applicants to be judged on merit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">whether former stipendiary magistrate entitled to reconsideration of application on basis of former or current policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">local courts act 1982 (n.s.w.), s. 12.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1989] HCA 35">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1989] HCA 35">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1989] HCA 35">appeal from state court exercising state jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1989] HCA 35">power to admit fresh evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1989] HCA 35">the constitution (63  64 vict, c. 12), s. 73.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1989] HCA 35">appeal to high court from state court exercising state jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1989] HCA 35">power to admit fresh evidence.  criminal law and procedure (w.a.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1989] HCA 35">petition for mercy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1989] HCA 35">reference of whole case to court of criminal appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1989] HCA 35">reference to be determined as appeal from conviction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1989] HCA 35">duty of court of criminal appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1989] HCA 35">power to exclude matters from consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1989] HCA 35">criminal code (w.a.), s. 21(a).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 50">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 50">offence against law of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 50">trial in state court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 50">appeal against sentence by delegate of commonwealth director of public prosecutions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 50">competency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 50">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 68(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 50">director of public prosecutions act 1983 (cth), ss. 9(7) , 31</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 50">crimes act 1958 (vict.), s. 567a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 50">acts interpretation act 1901 (cth), s. 34a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">ground of appeal added by amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">allegation of technical invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">effect of seeking new trial on different issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">limited public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w.),s. 75a(6).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 26">criminal law and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 26">appeal against conviction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 26">miscarriage of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 26">fresh evidence not available at trail</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 26">miscarriage of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 26">criminal appeal act 1912 (n.s.w.), s.6(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 50">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 50">powers of the commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 50">investiture of state courts with federal jurisdiction with respect to matters arising under laws made by parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 50">offence of attempting to pervert course of justice in relation to judicial power of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 50">committal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 50">whether part of "course of justice"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 50">whether offence confined to course of justice in court exercising judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 50">conferring jurisdiction on state courts to hear committal proceedings for offences against laws of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 50">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 50">the constitution (63  64 vict., c. 12), ss. 76 , 77 , 80</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 50">judiciary act 1903 (cth), ss. 68 , 72</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 50">crimes act 1914 (cth), ss. 43 , 85e .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">commissioner of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">to require person to attend to give evidence and produce documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">notices to attend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">delegation of commissioner's power to subordinate officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">facsimile of delegate's signature affixed to notice without his knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">signatory of notice authorized so to sign</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">validity of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth),s 264(1)+.   + section 264(1) of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) provides: taxpayer or not, including any officer employed in or in connexion with any department of a government or by any public authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">(a) to furnish him with such information as he may require; and (b) to attend and give evidence before him or before any officer authorized by him in that behalf concerning his or any other person's income or assessment, and may require him to produce all books, documents and other papers whatever in his custody or under his control relating thereto."  legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">solicitors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">duty of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.14">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">income tax investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.15">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">notice to attend to give evidence and produce documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.16">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">whether solicitor obliged to comply with notice without client's consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.17">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">whether legal privilege confined to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings.  income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.18">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">commissioner of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.19">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.20">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">to have full and free access to all buildings, places, books, documents and other papers for purposes of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.21">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">vouchers in locked room at bank</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.22">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">key in unlocked drawer in manager's office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.23">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">refusal to unlock door</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.24">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">whether bank under duty to locate or deliver particular documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.25">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth),s. 263.*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1974] HCA 35">criminal law and procedure (vict.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1974] HCA 35">petition for mercy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1974] HCA 35">reference of whole case to full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1974] HCA 35">determination of reference as in case of appeal from conviction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1974] HCA 35">fresh evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1974] HCA 35">duties of a court of criminal appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1974] HCA 35">evidence likely to remove certainty of guilt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1974] HCA 35">crimes act 1958 (vict.) ss. 568*, 584**.   * section 568 (1) of the crimes act 1958 (vict.) provides: "the full court on any such appeal against conviction shall allow the appeal if it thinks that the verdict of the jury shall be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence or that the judgment of the court before which the appellant was convicted should be set aside on the ground of a wrong decision of any question of law or that on any ground there was a miscarriage of justice and in any other case shall dismiss the appeal: provided that the full court may, notwithstanding that it is of opinion that the point raised in the appeal might be decided in favour of the appellant, dismiss the appeal if it considers that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred."  ** section 584 of the act provides: "nothing in this part shall affect the prerogative of mercy, but the attorney-general on the consideration of any petition for the exercise of her majesty's mercy, having reference to the conviction of a person on indictment or to the sentence (other than sentence of death) passed on a person so convicted, may, if he thinks fit, at any time either</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1974] HCA 35">(a) refer the whole case to the full court and the case shall then be heard and determined by that court as in the case of an appeal by a person convicted; or (b) if he desires the assistance of the judges of the supreme court on any point arising in the case with a view to the determination of the petition, refer that point to such judges for their opinion thereon . . ."</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1971] HCA 59">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1971] HCA 59">offence against law of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1971] HCA 59">trial in state court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1971] HCA 59">appeal against sentence by commonwealth attorney-general to state court of criminal appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1971] HCA 59">competency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1971] HCA 59">judiciary act 1903-1959 (cth), s. 68 (2)*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1971] HCA 59">criminal appeal act, 1912 (n.s.w.), s. 5d*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1037">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1037">application pursuant to s 5 administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) for an order of review of the decision of the minister for home affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1037">applicant currently serving prison sentence for conviction of being knowingly concerned in the importation into australia of more than a commercial quantity of cocaine contrary to s 233b(1) customs act 1901 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1037">minister refused applicant's petition to refer case to the court of appeal of queensland under s 672a(a) criminal code 1899 (qld)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1037">consideration of principles in martens v commonwealth [2009] fca 207 ; (2009) 108 ald 83 relating to the exercise of the referral power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1037">whether minister failed to consider properly the validity of the applicant's arrest warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1037">whether the minister failed to address or consider alleged fresh evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1037">whether the minister failed to consider properly the process of extradition to which the applicant was subjected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 1037">whether the minister failed to consider properly the compliance of the trial with constitutional and other requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 1037">whether the minister failed to review the court transcript of the applicant's trial</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1037" id="cs0">In Martens [2009] FCA 207 ; 108 ALD 83 , Logan J observed that it was relevant for the Minister, when considering an application requesting a reference under s 672A of the Code, to consider whether there was presented with the application evidence which might, arguably, when the whole case was considered, at least raise a significant possibility that the jury, acting reasonably, would have acquitted the applicant (at [51]). His Honour further observed:

 The existence of a discretion [in the Minister] undoubtedly means that a convicted offender has no right to the reference of his case. That the reference power is discretionary indicates that it was contemplated that the Minister would make some evaluative judgment as to whether a reference ought to be made but not in so doing usurp the role that was consigned to an appeal court in the event of a reference. In this sense, the Minister is a "gatekeeper" who has a role in ensuring that the public interest in the administration of justice as furthered by the efficient allocation of judicial resources is not subverted by the referring of cases to the Court of Appeal which must inevitably fail. That the Court of Appeal on a reference itself had power to disregard grounds which it considered frivolous would not, in my opinion, prevent a Minister from refusing to refer a case where there was neither any new evidence nor even a ground of challenge not previously adversely considered, but care would need to be taken not to treat as frivolous a reasonable argument with which the Minister happened to disagree. (at [53])

 I will generally only recommend that the Governor-General grant a pardon where I am satisfied that an offender is:

 Morally and technically innocent of the offence, and that there is no remaining avenue of appeal against his or her conviction, or
 Morally and technically innocent of the offence and there are exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of a pardon, despite avenues of appeal remaining open to the offender, taking into account the need to respect the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary.

 No criteria are specified in section 672A of the Queensland Criminal Code to guide my decision on whether to refer a case to the Court of Appeal. However, in line with the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Martens v Commonwealth of Australia [2009] FCA 207 , I will only refer a matter to the Court of Appeal if the application presents evidence which might, arguably, when the whole case is considered, at least raise a significant possibility that the jury, acting reasonably, would have acquitted the applicant.

 Having regard to all the relevant information, I am not satisfied that you are morally and technically innocent of the offence under paragraph 233B(1)(d) of the Customs Act 1901 of which you were convicted. Accordingly, I have decided not to recommend that the Governor-General grant you a pardon. I respectfully apply the reasoning of Logan J in Martens [2009] FCA 207 ; 108 ALD 83 to the circumstances before me. I accept that the Minister is the decision-maker in the circumstances of this case in terms of s 672A of the Code, and that the Minister's decision is subject to review under the ADJR Act. In any event, I do not understand these issues to be in contention between the parties.  The application of s 672A of the Code where a person seeks referral of a case to the Court of Appeal of Queensland in respect of an offence under Commonwealth (as distinct from State) criminal law was considered in detail by Logan J in Martens v Commonwealth [2009] FCA 207 ; (2009) 108 ALD 83. In that case his Honour held, inter alia , that: Section 68(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) provides for Commonwealth criminal law to be administered in each State on the same footing as State law. In the Executive Government of the Commonwealth, Ministerial consideration of an application for referral of a case to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s 672A of the Code falls to the Minister for Home Affairs. The decision of the Minister to decline to exercise power under s 672A of the Code is reviewable under the ADJR Act.  In considering this submission, in my view the questions for this Court are: whether the Minister was presented with evidence which might, arguably, when the whole case was considered, at least raise a significant possibility that the jury, acting reasonably, would have acquitted Mr Nudd; and whether the Minister has failed to consider such evidence at all or failed to evaluate it by reference to such a test (cf Martens [2009] FCA 207 ; 108 ALD 83 at [51] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] QCA 139" id="cs1">[9] In Martens v Commonwealth of Australia [2] Logan J of the Federal Court of Australia concluded that it was open to the Commonwealth Attorney-General to enliven the jurisdiction of this Court under s 672A of the Criminal Code.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 13 Reasons for decision may be obtained</title>
<title id="l3">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l4">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15A Construction of Acts to be subject to Constitution</title>
<title id="l5">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 19A References to Ministers and Departments</title>
<title id="l6">CRIMES ACT 1914 </title>
<title id="l7">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l8">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 36 Absence of Speaker</title>
<title id="l9">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 61 Executive power</title>
<title id="l10">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 62 Federal Executive Council</title>
<title id="l11">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 64 Ministers of State</title>
<title id="l12">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 65 Number of Ministers</title>
<title id="l13">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75 Original jurisdiction of High Court</title>
<title id="l14">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 80 Trial by jury</title>
<title id="l15">DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ACT 1983 </title>
<title id="l16">DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ACT 1983 - SECT 9 Powers of Director</title>
<title id="l17">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l18">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 2 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l19">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l20">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 68 Jurisdiction of State and Territory courts in criminal cases</title>
<title id="l21">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l22">INTERPRETATION ACT </title>
<title id="l23">CRIMINAL CODE 1899 </title>
<title id="l24">CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 1 1 Definitions</title>
<title id="l25">CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 18 18 Royal prerogative of mercy</title>
<title id="l26">CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 668 668 Definitions</title>
<title id="l27">CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 672 672 Appeals from the decisions of the Court</title>
<title id="l28">CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 672A 672A Pardoning power preserved</title>
<title id="l29">CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 689 689 Plea</title>
<title id="l30">JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l31">JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT 1991 - SECT 31 31 Decision to which part applies</title>
<title id="l32">JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT 1991 - SECT 38 38 Application for order to comply</title>
<title id="l33">CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT 1935 </title>
<title id="l34">CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT 1935 - SECT 369 </title>
<title id="l35">CRIMES ACT 1958 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1804">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1804">whether union engaged in unlawful industrial action within the meaning of s 38 of the building and construction industry improvement act 2005 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1804">whether union imposed a ban on the performance of work at the construction site</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1804">whether the bans constituted a restriction on the performance of work in accordance with the relevant award  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1804">whether union threatened to take action against a construction company with intent to coerce the company to employ a building employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1804">whether there was a threat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1804">whether there was intent to coerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1804">no negation of choice therefore no intent to coerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1426">industrial relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1426">penalty hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1426">admitted contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1426">civil penalty provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1426">relevant considerations in determining appropriate penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1426">penalty determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 517">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 517">remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 517">orders sought by consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 517">declarations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 517">whether appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 517">form of declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 517">monetary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 517">whether amounts appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 744">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 744">penalty hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 744">consideration of matters to be taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 744">where parties are agreed that two infringements constitute one course of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 744">where parties submit penalties should be in lower range</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 744">whether contrition was shown at an appropriate time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 744">whether breaches of other industrial legislation should be taken into account.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">contraventions of s 43 of the building and construction industry improvement act 2005 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">amount of penalties to be imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">nature and extent of unlawful conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">consequences of contravening conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">previous similar unlawful conduct, including prior contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">relevance of previous contravention by another autonomous division of the union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">contraventions had common purpose but distinct in time, place and coercion exerted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">relevance of, and weight to be given to, size and financial position and non-profit-making objective of union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">general and specific deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">totality principle   costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">applicant partially successful in his pleaded case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">respondents filed further amended defence on first day of trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">appropriate costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">applicant entitled to part of his costs to reflect measure of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">respondents to pay applicant's costs thrown away by reason of amendment on party-party basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 787">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 787">penalty hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 787">admitted contraventions of s 38 of the building and construction industry improvement act 2005 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 787">agreed penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 787">relevant considerations in assessing appropriateness of agreed penalty</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 744" id="cs0">Individual (did not appear in the proceedings): $5,000 for first contravention (23% of maximum); $2,200 for second contravention (10% of maximum). NOTE: the respondents were also separately penalised for contraventions arising under the WR Act. Duffy v Construction, Forestry, Mining  Energy Union (No 2) [2009] FCA 299
Union (previous contraventions, contraventions not admitted): $5,500 (5% of maximum). Cozadinos v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2010] FCA 48
Union (previous contraventions, contraventions admitted; contraventions of s 38 and 43 of the BCII Act but as part of single course of conduct and subject to single maximum penalty): $40,000 total (36% of maximum). Individual (previous contraventions; contraventions admitted; contraventions of s 38 and 43 of the BCII Act but as part of single course of conduct and subject to single maximum penalty): $5,000 (23%).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1040" id="cs1">Of course, to say the Union is a large national organisation is not to deny that the Union is a non-profit-making enterprise, a consideration that has sometimes been taken into account in the Union's favour: see Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2004] FCA 517 at [8] per Gray J; Draffin v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2009] FCA 243 at [44] per Marshall J; and Duffy v Construction, Forestry, Mining  Energy Union (No 2) [2009] FCA 299 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 787" id="cs2">There are three instances of similar previous conduct by the Union involving breaches of s 38 ; see Stuart-Mahoney, Temple v Powell [2008] FCA 714 ; [2008] FCA 714 ; (2008) 169 FCR 169 and Duffy v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2) [2009] FCA 299. Although the relevant conduct in Temple , concerned breaches by the Western Australian Branch of the Union of s 38 of the Act, nevertheless the conduct is previous relevant conduct; see Williams v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No. 2) [2009] FCA 548 per Jessup J at [22]---[25], see also Temple per Dowsett J at [63]. The second respondent has not engaged in any similar previous conduct. In contrast to the circumstances in Stuart-Mahoney, Temple and Duffy (No 2) , the respondents' conduct on 6 October 2006 was of limited duration and impact and penalties at the lower end of the scale are appropriate. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l1">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 38 Unlawful industrial action prohibited</title>
<title id="l2">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 49 Penalties etc. for contravention of civil penalty provision</title>
<title id="l3">CRIMES ACT 1914 </title>
<title id="l4">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 4AA Penalty units</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 18">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 18">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 18">from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 18">whether notice of objection to competency may be filed in appeal pursuant to s 44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 18">whether notice of objection to competency is a form of application or merely an instrument with costs consequences  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 18">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 18">from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 18">whether decision by tribunal not to issue a subpoena is a decision to which s 44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 18">whether appeal competent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 124">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 124">appeal from judge of federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 124">whether decision of judge final or interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 124">whether appeal or application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 124">whether application for leave to appeal filed in time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 124">decision to deal with appeal/application on its merits</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 18" id="cs0">The practice of this Court, on one possible view, appears to have departed from the terms of the rules in two ways which are pertinent. First, it has on occasions been assumed that the procedure of a notice of objection to competency is available in s 44 appeals: Alexakis v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1878 at [1] and [28] per Jacobson J; Burgess v Secretary, Department of Families Housing Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2009] FCA 861 at [10]- [11] per Graham J. Secondly, one view of the same decision is that a notice of object to competency is a species of application by which proceedings may be dismissed. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 124" id="cs1">1 By Notice of Appeal filed on 9 January 2009, Mr Alexakis ('the appellant') appeals from the decision of the primary judge delivered on 12 December 2008 in Alexakis v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1878 ('the decision'). The decision was made in proceedings instituted by the appellant arising out of a reduction in his social security payments in consequence of him having received compensation, as defined in s 17(2)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l3">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 17 Compensation recovery definitions</title>
<title id="l4">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 1173 Effect of periodic compensation payments on rate of person's compensation affected payment</title>
<title id="l5">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 1184K Secretary may disregard some payments</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l7">WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l8">WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT 1987 - SECT 65A Special provisions for psychological and psychiatric injury</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">australian broadcasting corporation v o'neill  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunction to restrain publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">appellant restrained from broadcasting documentary film making allegations including that respondent suspected of having committed notorious unsolved crime</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">principles on which interlocutory injunction to restrain publication granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">relevance of "flexible" or "rigid" approaches to granting interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of value of free speech</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of avoiding "trial by media"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether relevant that only nominal damages likely to be awarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of status of respondent as convicted life prisoner.  injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether general principles governing grant of interlocutory injunctions to restrain wrongs apply to interlocutory applications to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">relationship between beecham group ltd v bristol laboratories pty ltd [1968] hca 1 ; (1968) 118 clr 618 and american cyanamid co v ethicon ltd [1975] ukhl 1 ; [1975] ac 396</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether respondent had made out an entitlement to an interlocutory injunction within the principles established by beecham</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether full court and primary judge shown to have erred in granting of interlocutory injunction.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunction to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">nature of equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions to restrain publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">effect of common law procedure act 1854 (uk)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">effect of judicature act 1873 (uk).  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunction in defamation proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">necessity of demonstrating error in order to justify intervention by high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether error shown in approach and conclusion of full court and primary judge.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">defences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">justification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether avoiding "trial by media" relevant to determination of "public benefit" required by defamation act 1957 (tas) s 15.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 12CA Unconscionable conduct within the meaning of the unwritten law of the States and Territories</title>
<title id="l2">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 12CC Unconscionable conduct in business transactions</title>
<title id="l3">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 12GD Injunctions</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 82">01 government interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 82">state of western australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1716">aborigines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1716">native title determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1716">final determination following contested proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1716">determination covering mainland area, offshore intertidal zone and adjacent reefs and islets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">determination of native title rights and interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">native title holders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">definition of native title holding group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">whether several estate groups holding rights separately or one community encompassing all groups</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">membership, by recognition, of persons connected by birthplace, adoption and spousal affiliation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">whether determination of native title rights and interests can incorporate specific processes for application of traditional law and custom</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">native title rights and interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">effect of prior partial extinguishment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">control over access to land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">control over use of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">whether particular rights relate to land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">whether particular rights enforceable and cognisable by common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">right to control disclosure of knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">whether relates to land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">right to determine membership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">right to be acknowledged as traditional owners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">whether enforceable and cognisable right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">right to trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">whether supported by evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">application of s 47b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">proclamation of townsite</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">no subsequent action to develop townsite</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.23">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">whether proclamation for public purposes or particular purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.24">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">meaning of 'is to be used' in s 47b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.25">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 135">whether applicants occupied land at time of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1025">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1025">competing claims for communal and group native title rights and interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1025">whether native title rights and interests in the respective claim areas are possessed by members of the claimant community or by members of the competing claimant group who comprise one of the clans which forms part of the claimant community</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">native title determination application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">recognition of native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">statutory purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">native title claim group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">composite group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">whether two distinct societies at sovereignty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">continuity and evolutionary change post-sovereignty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">native title rights and interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">clan and family estates</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">whether native title held by native title claim group or distinct estate groups</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">vacant estates</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">whether native title lost</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">connection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">nature of relationship to land and waters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">offshore rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">intertidal zone</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">reefs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">extinguishment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">operation of ss 47a and 47b of native title act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">occupy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">previous exclusive possession acts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.24">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">pearl oyster farm lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.25">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">whether commercial lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.26">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">whether lease for aquacultural purposes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.27">cited from="[2005] FCA 777">whether extinguishment of ceremonial and subsistence rights by pearling legislation</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l1">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 223 Native title</title>
<title id="l2">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 225 Determination of native title</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 112">taxes  duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 112">income tax and related legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 112">objections and appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 112">where commissioner assessed primary and additional tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 112">where notice of assessment incorporated notice of both</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 112">where taxpayer pursued objection and appeal including ground that commissioner failed to remit additional tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 112">whether open to taxpayer to request reasons pursuant to s 13 of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1997 (cth) of decision not to remit additional tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 112">whether decision separate from objection decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 267">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 267">large corporate group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 267">inter-group transactions undertaken over six consecutive fiscal years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 267">transactions involving inter-group interest bearing borrowings principally by one group member and transfers of tax losses arising out of those borrowings to other group members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 267">prior primary and appellate claims by proceedings in federal court made by borrowing member against the commissioner for interest deductibility in respect of one fiscal year</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 267">decision at first instance and on appeal in relation to that fiscal year adverse to that single group member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 267">findings made in context of those proceedings as to assessability to tax of that group member in respect of some transactions for differing fiscal years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 267">after conclusion of single fiscal year further proceedings commenced by the same corporate group member together with other corporate group members in respect of transactions involving borrowings and transfers of tax losses in respect of antecedent as well as subsequent fiscal years to that resolved by federal court in favour of commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 267">whether issue estoppel, anshun estoppel and/or abuse of process should operate in favour of commissioner in respect of deductions for losses of antecedent and subsequent fiscal years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 267">meaning of privies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 267">authority in australian courts of earlier decisions of privy council and house of lords</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 267">summary judgment application of commissioner granted</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 22 Determination of matter completely and finally</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 23 Making of orders and issue of writs</title>
<title id="l3">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l4">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZR Taxation decisions covered by single notice to be treated as single decision</title>
<title id="l5">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZU How taxation objections are to be made</title>
<title id="l6">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZW When taxation objections are to be made</title>
<title id="l7">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZ Person may seek review of, or appeal against, Commissioner's decision</title>
<title id="l8">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZO Grounds of objection and burden of proof</title>
<title id="l9">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZP Order of Federal Court on objection decision</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>