Law and disorder

CXXXVIII v ACIC

CXXXVIII was stopped when he flew into Adelaide airport by ACIC officers demanding he attend a compulsory hearing and that he hand over his phones and other items forthwith.

The man was allegedly part of a criminal syndicate with extensive connections to other serious and organised crime entities on the National Crime Target List. But it was argued the notice to produce was incoherent and impossible to comply with and CXXXVIII appealed it all the way to the High Court. But before the matter could be heard, the ACIC withdrew summons and notice to produce, agreed to pay the costs of CXXXVIII and a related case of woman known as CXXXIX. The matter was discontinued by consent. The ACIC paid a total of $445,000 in those cases.

D1 and D2 v ACIC

Two outlaw motorcycle gang members, being held in the Melbourne detention centre at Broadmeadows were summoned to appear to at the ACIC’s Docklands star chamber to answer questions. But it was successfully argued that attempts to remove the men, who were declared unlawful citizens and were being held pending deportation to New Zealand, was also unlawful. The summons were withdrawn.

X v Sage (ACIC)

X was summonsed to attend a coercive hearing but challenged the constitutional validity of the summons for a persons ‘postcharge’. The ACIC withdrew the summons.

GG v Crime Commission

One of the first cases where the then Crime Commission made so many errors and inconsistencies in documents, the Federal Court said the summons to attend a coercive hearing should be set aside.