|
Murphy v Electoral Commissioner [2016] HCA 36Before French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon JJ
Constitutional law (Cth) – Legislative power – Franchise – Power of Parliament to regulate exercise of entitlement to enrol to vote – Provisions of Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) precluding consideration of claims for enrolment or transfer of enrolment and amendment of Electoral Rolls during "suspension period" from 8pm on day of closing of Electoral Rolls until close of polling for election – Whether burden on constitutional mandate that Parliament be "directly chosen by the people" – Whether burden justified by substantial reason – Relevance of Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) 233 CLR 162; [2007] HCA 43 and Rowe v Electoral Commissioner (2010) 243 CLR 1; [2010] HCA 46.
Words and phrases – "adequacy in its balance", "burden", "constitutional mandate of popular choice", "directly chosen by the people", "franchise", "necessity", "obvious and compelling alternative", "reasonably appropriate and adapted", "structured proportionality", "substantial reason", "suitability". Constitution – ss 7, 10, 24, 30, 51(xxxvi). Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) – ss 94A(4), 95(4), 96(4), 101, 102(4), 103A(5), 103B(5), 118(5). |
|
The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35Before French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Keane, Gordon JJ
Criminal law – Criminal liability – Where respondent's wife disappeared and body later found – Where respondent involved in sexual affair with another woman – Where some injuries to respondent's cheek likely caused by fingernails – Where respondent gave evidence at trial denying involvement in killing wife and disposing of body – Where jury convicted respondent of murder – Where Court of Appeal held hypothesis of unintentional killing not excluded by prosecution and substituted verdict of manslaughter – Where common ground on appeal that respondent killed his wife – Whether hypothesis consistent with innocence of murder open – Whether jury's verdict unreasonable – Whether jury entitled to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that respondent acted with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm when he killed his wife.
Words and phrases – "circumstantial evidence", "hypothesis consistent with innocence", "intention", "intractably neutral", "lies", "motive", "post-offence conduct", "role of the jury", "unreasonable verdict", "whole of the evidence". Criminal Code (Q) – s 668E(1). |
|
Maritime Union of Australia v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] HCA 34Before French CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle JJ
Statutes – Delegated legislation – Validity – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Offshore resources industry – Where amendments to Migration Act had effect of extending migration zone to non-citizens participating in or supporting offshore resources activity – Where amendments created specified visa requirements for such persons – Where amendments conferred power on Minister to make determination excepting operations and activities from extended migration zone – Where Minister's determination purported to except from migration zone, and specified visa requirements, all operations and activities to extent certain vessels or structures were used – Whether determination entirely negated operation of general rule in extending migration zone to non-citizens participating in or supporting offshore resources activity – Whether determination beyond power and invalid.
Words and phrases – "Australian resources installation", "exception", "migration zone", "offshore resources activity". Legislation Act 2003 (Cth) – s 42. Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – ss 5, 8, 9A, 13(1), 41. Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Act 2013 (Cth). Offshore Minerals Act 1994 (Cth) – s 4, Ch 2. Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth) – s 7, Chs 2, 3. |
|
NH v Director of Public Prosecutions [2016] HCA 33Before French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Nettle, Gordon JJ
Criminal law – Appeal – Verdict – Not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter – Alleged mistake by foreperson – Requisite majority for verdict of not guilty of murder allegedly not reached – Report of foreperson to court officer disclosing alleged error – Statements as affidavits from jurors – Full Court quashed jury verdicts and ordered new trials on count of murder – Whether presumption of correctness of jury verdicts rebuttable in circumstances – Whether Full Court could reconsider perfected orders in original jurisdiction – Whether alleged mistake was material irregularity leading to unlawful verdicts – Whether alleged mistake by foreperson and acquiescence of jury an abuse of process – Whether inherent power to correct perfected orders in circumstances – Admissibility of jury statements to impeach verdicts – Consideration of distinction between verdict and judgment.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) – ss 350, 351A, 352, 353. Juries Act 1927 (SA) – s 57. Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) – ss 17, 48, 49. |
|
Sio v The Queen [2016] HCA 32Before French CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Gordon JJ
Criminal law – Criminal liability – Inconsistent verdicts – Where appellant drove person to brothel – Where person intended to commit robbery – Where person fatally stabbed victim and took money – Where appellant charged with murder and armed robbery with wounding – Where jury directions on armed robbery with wounding charge omitted element of foresight of use of knife to wound – Where appellant acquitted of murder and convicted of armed robbery with wounding – Whether conviction and acquittal inconsistent – Whether substituted verdict should be ordered – Whether new trial should be ordered.
Evidence – Hearsay evidence – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 65(2)(d) – Where person made representation that appellant gave him knife – Whether representation made in circumstances that made it likely that the representation was reliable. Words and phrases – "circumstances that make it likely that the representation is reliable", "hearsay evidence", "inconsistent verdicts", "merciful verdict", "misdirection", "new trial", "substituted verdict". Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – ss 7, 8. Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – s 65. |
