Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Younas v Commonwealth of Australia (Evidentiary Ruling) [2024] FCA 357 File number(s): VID 698 of 2023
Judgment of: WHEELAHAN J
Date of judgment: 9 April 2024
Date of publication of reasons: 11 April 2024
Catchwords: EVIDENCE — Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 44, 69(2)–(3) – where counsel sought to conduct cross-examination by reference to a transcript of interview – where objection was taken to admissibility of the transcript on the basis of the hearsay rule – s 69(3) of the Evidence Act was not engaged – the business records exception to the hearsay rule in s 69(2) applied – objection overruled.
Legislation: Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) s 10B(1) Criminal Code (Cth) ss 137.1(1), 137.1(5) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 44, 69, 69(2), 69(3), 81, 82, 102, 103 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 336E–336F
Cases cited: Lancaster v The Queen [2014] VSCA 333; 44 VR 820 Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA 36; 244 CLR 352 McMahon v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (No 5) [2012] NSWSC 218 Pangallo v Smith [2015] ACTSC 313 Smith v Pangallo [2017] ACTCA 61; 83 MVR 155
Division: General Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 18
Date of hearing: 26–27 March 2024, 8–9 and 11 April 2024
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Guo
Solicitor for the Applicant: Asylum Seeker Resource Centre
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate