Judgments, ordered by case name

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY

Now Showing items 661 to 680  Previous Page   Next Page

Jump to page of 55


NAGV and NAGW of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 6

222 CLR 161; 79 ALJR 609; 213 ALR 668
Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon JJ
Date: 2 Mar 2005 Case Number: S187/2004
Immigration – Refugees - Refugee Review Tribunal - Decision - Judicial review - Tribunal found that appellants had genuine fear of persecution if returned to Russia - Tribunal concluded that Israel was a third country where appellants would have effective protection - Protection visa refused - Whether the Tribunal failed to observe the requirements in ss 36 and 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - Whether each appellant was a non-citizen in Australia to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees - Whether this means anything other than "refugee" within the meaning of Art 1 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Immigration – Refugees - International law - Construction of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees - Whether a non-refoulement obligation precludes removal to a safe third country.

Words and phrases – "protection obligations", "to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol".

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – ss 36 and 65.

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees – Arts 1, 32 and 33.

NAIS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 77

228 CLR 470; 80 ALJR 367; 223 ALR 171
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon JJ
Date: 14 Dec 2005 Case Number: S73/2005
Immigration – Refugee Review Tribunal – Substantial delay between first Tribunal hearing and Tribunal decision – Whether delay resulted in real and substantial risk of prejudice to appellants – Whether prejudice to appellants can be inferred – Whether delay by administrative tribunal constitutes denial of procedural fairness or failure to conduct review as required by law – Whether decision of administrative tribunal may be set aside following substantial delay – Effect of delay on question of assessing appellants' demeanour – Calculation of the period of delay.

Immigration – Refugee Review Tribunal – Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 420 provides for an objective of administrative review that is "fair, just, economical, informal and quick" – Relevance of s 420 to complaint of delay – Special considerations relevant to delay in asylum cases.

Administrative law – Jurisdictional error – Whether denial of procedural fairness – Significance of delay – Grounds for judicial review – Whether delay affected the Refugee Review Tribunal's capacity to make a proper assessment of demeanour – Whether there was a real and substantial risk that the Tribunal's capacity to assess the appellants was impaired.

Administrative law – Judicial review – Assessment of fairness of procedures followed by administrative decision-maker – Substantial delay between first Tribunal hearing and Tribunal decision – Limited role of courts performing judicial review – Relevance of general notions of fairness and justice – Relevance of authority on delay in context of appeals against judicial determinations – Importance of contextual factors in assessing complaint of delay.

Administrative law – Jurisdictional error – Substantial delay between first Tribunal hearing and Tribunal decision – Appropriate remedy where denial of procedural fairness due to substantial delay – Failure by appellants to seek mandamus – Whether relief should be refused on discretionary grounds.

Words and phrases – "delay", "jurisdictional error", "procedural fairness".

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – ss 420, 425(1), 430.

NBGM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] HCA 54

231 CLR 52; 81 ALJR 337; 231 ALR 380
Gummow ACJ, Kirby, Callinan, Heydon, Crennan JJ
Date: 15 Nov 2006 Case Number: S145/2006
Immigration – Refugees - Application for permanent protection visa - Statute requiring Minister to be satisfied Australia owes protection obligations to the applicant under the Convention - Applicant previously granted temporary protection visa for a specified period - Whether previous grant of temporary protection visa entitles applicant on application for a new visa to a presumption of being owed protection obligations under the Convention - Construction of Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 36 - Construction of the Convention.

Words and phrases – "refugee", "protection obligations", "cessation".

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – ss 5(1), 36.

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees – Art 1A, Art 1C(5). Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.

NEAT Domestic Trading Pty Limited v AWB Limited [2003] HCA 35

216 CLR 277; 77 ALJR 1263; 198 ALR 179
Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan JJ
Date: 19 Jun 2003 Case Number: S225/2002
Administrative law – Judicial review – Statutory scheme regulating export of wheat – Consent of statutory authority required for export – Authority precluded from giving consent without approval of nominated company incorporated under Corporations Law – Whether company's withholding of approval was decision of an administrative character made under an enactment – Whether in withholding approval nominated company exercised discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to merits of particular case.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) – ss 3(1), 5(2)(f), 6(2)(f).

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – s 51(1).

Wheat Marketing Act 1989 (Cth) – ss 57(1), (1A), (3A), (3B), (6), (7).

Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd [2005] HCA 54

223 CLR 331; 79 ALJR 1736; 221 ALR 213
Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon JJ
Date: 29 Sep 2005 Case Number: P85/2004
Private international law – Foreign tort - Choice of law - Appellant was injured in the People's Republic of China - Scope of the lex loci delicti - Where the lex loci delicti treats another connecting factor, such as nationality or domicile, as determining the applicable law - Whether Article 146 of the General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China was a relevant part of the lex loci delicti - Whether Article 146 of the General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China made the law of the parties' domicile the applicable law - Whether the doctrine of renvoi applies to international tort claims - Infinite regression of reference.

Evidence – Foreign law - Principles governing admission of evidence of foreign law - Where there is a deficiency of evidence - Whether there is a presumption that foreign law is the same as the law of the forum.

Words and phrases – "lex loci delicti", "choice of law", "renvoi", "single renvoi", "double renvoi", "infinite regression of reference".

Neindorf v Junkovic [2005] HCA 75

80 ALJR 341; 222 ALR 631
Gleeson CJ, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon JJ
Date: 8 Dec 2005 Case Number: A36/2005
Negligence – Occupiers' liability – Breach of duty of care – Appellant invited the public to attend a garage sale – Garage sale conducted on the driveway of her residence – Driveway surface was uneven – Respondent entered premises and tripped on driveway – Whether risk posed by the uneven surface of the driveway was obvious and relatively minor and whether such considerations justified conclusion that there was no breach of duty of care.

Negligence – Occupiers' liability – Whether appellant owed a duty of care to the respondent – Scope of duty – Relationship between the duty of care and other elements of the tort of negligence – Relevance of obviousness of the risk.

Negligence – Occupiers' liability – Standard of care – Whether appellant breached duty of care – Nature and extent of the premises – Nature and extent of the danger – Significance of economic relationship between the parties –Significance of the respondent's age – Significance of the appellant's knowledge of the danger – Absence of any precautionary measures – Reasonableness of taking precautionary measures – Relevance of obviousness of the risk – Relevance of inattention by the respondent – Relevance of the application to the evidence of the Wrongs Act 1936 (SA).

Words and phrases – "obvious risk".

Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) – s 20.

Wrongs Act 1936 (SA) – s 17C.

Network Ten Pty Limited v TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited [2004] HCA 14

218 CLR 273; 78 ALJR 585; 205 ALR 1
McHugh ACJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan JJ
Date: 11 Mar 2004 Case Number: S150/2003
Copyright – Infringement – Television broadcast – Television programme broadcast by appellant contained excerpts from programmes previously broadcast by respondent – Each excerpt of brief duration – Meaning of the "subject matter" of broadcast copyright – Whether each visual image capable of being observed as a separate image on a television screen and accompanying sounds is "a television broadcast" in which copyright subsists – Whether a "substantial part" of a television broadcast must be copied to constitute infringement.

Statutes – Construction and interpretation – Relevance of legislative history and context – Relevance of legislative history and context of similar United Kingdom statute – Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), ss 25(4), 87.

Words and phrases – "broadcast", "television broadcast", "re-broadcast", "programme", "subject-matter", "substantial part", "fixation".

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – ss 14(1), 25(4), 87, 91, 101.

Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) – ss 6(1), 14.

New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council v Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act [2016] HCA 50

French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon JJ
Date: 14 Dec 2016 Case Number: S168/2016
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples – Land rights – Claimable Crown lands – Crown land dedicated for public purposes – Where State recorded as registered proprietor – Where Crown land dedicated for gaol purposes – Where Crown land proclaimed as correctional complex and correctional centre – Where gaol closed but dedications continued in force – Where proclamations revoked – Where Crown land held pending decision as to future use – Where activities on Crown land not inconsistent with dedications – Whether land "lawfully used or occupied" under s 36(1)(b) of Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW).

Constitutional law (NSW) – Executive power – Power over Crown lands – Whether executive power abrogated by s 2 of New South Wales Constitution Act 1855 (Imp) – Whether statutory authorisation required for lawful occupation of Crown lands.

Words and phrases – "actual occupation", "beneficial and remedial legislation", "beneficial construction", "claimable Crown lands", "Crown lands", "dedication", "lawfully used or occupied", "lawful occupation", "the Crown".

Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) – s 36.

New South Wales Constitution Act 1855 (Imp) (18 & 19 Vict c 54) – s 2.

Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) – ss 13D, 13J.

New South Wales v Bujdoso [2005] HCA 76

227 CLR 1; 80 ALJR 236; 222 ALR 663
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon JJ
Date: 8 Dec 2005 Case Number: S289/2005
Negligence – Breach of duty of care - Prison authorities - Respondent was a prisoner admitted to minimal supervision Work Release Programme - Respondent had been threatened by other prisoners - Appellant knew of threats - Respondent assaulted by a group of prisoners - Scope of duty of prison authorities to protect the safety of prisoners under its control - Whether the appellant breached its duty of care to the respondent - Whether effective measures were adopted to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury to the respondent.

New South Wales v Commonwealth of Australia [2006] HCA 52

229 CLR 1; 81 ALJR 34; 231 ALR 1
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon, Crennan JJ
Date: 14 Nov 2006 Case Number: S592/2005 P66/2005 A3/2006 B5/2006 B6/2006 S50/2006 M21/2006
Constitutional Law (Cth) – Powers of federal Parliament – Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (Cth) amended Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) – Amending Act altered primary constitutional basis of Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) so as to place reliance on s 51(xx) instead of s 51(xxxv) of the Constitution – Constitutional validity of Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (Cth) – Whether s 51(xx) of the Constitution confers power upon the federal Parliament to regulate the employment relationship between "foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth" and their employees.

Constitutional Law (Cth) – Powers of federal Parliament – Section 51(xx) – Whether, to be supported by s 51(xx), the fact that a corporation is a foreign, trading or financial corporation must be significant in the way in which the law relates to it – Whether sufficient for law to be characterised as law with respect to constitutional corporations that it singles out constitutional corporations as the object of statutory command.

Constitutional Law (Cth) – Powers of federal Parliament – Relationship between s 51(xx) and s 51(xxxv) – Whether s 51(xx) confined in its operation by reference to terms of s 51(xxxv) – Whether s 51(xxxv) represents the totality of the federal Parliament's power to make laws with respect to industrial relations, except in relation to employees of the Commonwealth and other limited categories of employees – Whether s 51(xxxv) contains a "positive prohibition or restriction" to which s 51(xx) is subject – Whether s 51(xxxv) contains a "safeguard, restriction or qualification" to which s 51(xx) is subject.

Constitutional Law (Cth) – Powers of federal Parliament – Section 51(xxxv) – Constitutional validity of Sched 6 of Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) as amended by Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (Cth) ("Amended Act") – Whether Sched 6 supported by s 51(xxxv) of the Constitution.

Constitutional Law (Cth) – Powers of federal Parliament – Section 122 – Amended Act applied to any body corporate incorporated in a Territory and any person or entity that carried on an activity in a Territory so far as the person or entity employed an individual in connection with the activity – Whether supported by s 122 of the Constitution.

Constitutional Law (Cth) – Powers of federal Parliament – Exclusion of State and Territory laws – Section 16 of Amended Act excluded certain State and Territory laws – Whether s 16 a law with respect to any head of power in s 51 of the Constitution – Whether s 16 amounted to a bare attempt to limit or exclude State legislative power – Whether s 16 impermissibly curtailed the capacity of the States to function as governments.

Constitutional Law (Cth) – Powers of federal Parliament – Section 117 of Amended Act empowered the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to restrain a State industrial authority from dealing with certain matters – Whether s 117 contrary to s 106 of the Constitution – Whether s 117 impermissibly impaired capacity of States to function as governments – Whether s 117 supported by s 51(xx).

Constitutional Law (Cth) – Powers of federal Parliament – Regulation-making powers – Sections 356 and 846(1) of Amended Act together empowered the Governor-General to make regulations specifying matters to be "prohibited content" in relation to workplace agreements made under the Act, without expressly stipulating any relevant criteria – Whether regulation-making power amounted to a "law" – Whether regulation-making power a law with respect to any identifiable head of Commonwealth legislative power.

Constitutional Law (Cth) – Constitutional interpretation – Applicable principles of interpretation – Relevance of failure of proposals to alter Constitution by referendum.

Constitution – ss 51(xx), 51(xxxv), 122.

Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (Cth).

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).

New South Wales v DC [2017] HCA 22

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Gordon JJ
Date: 14 Jun 2017 Case Number: S35/2017
Negligence – Duty of care – Statutory power to report abuse of child to police – Where duty of care in exercise of statutory powers conceded – Where scope or extent of duty disputed – Where primary judge found that no authority acting reasonably could regard failure to report abuse to police as reasonable exercise of statutory powers in present case – Where State conceded that only reasonable exercise of statutory powers in some cases may be to report abuse to police – Whether appropriate in light of concessions to consider scope or extent of duty – Special leave to appeal revoked.

Tort – Vicarious liability – Where State conceded vicarious liability for breach of duty of care – Where statute providing for vicarious liability of Crown not in force – Where concession may not have reflected applicable law at relevant times – Special leave to appeal revoked.

Words and phrases – "duty of care", "scope or extent of duty", "statutory discretionary power", "vicarious liability".

Child Welfare Act 1939 (NSW) – Pt XIV, s 148B(5).

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) – s 43A.

Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 (NSW) – s 8.

New South Wales v Fahy [2007] HCA 20

232 CLR 486; 81 ALJR 1021; 236 ALR 406
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon, Crennan JJ
Date: 22 May 2007 Case Number: S341/2006
Negligence – Relationship between the Police Service Act 1990 (NSW) and the nature and extent of the duty of care owed by the "Crown" or Commissioner of Police to the respondent police officer.

Negligence – Respondent police officer assisted a stabbing victim without support from nearby police officers - As a result the respondent suffered post- traumatic stress disorder - Whether the "Crown" or Commissioner of Police breached duty of care owed to the respondent by failing to establish a system of work whereby, when possible, the respondent was supported by another police officer - Whether failure of nearby police officers to provide support to respondent was a breach of duty.

Negligence – Breach of duty - Foreseeability of risk of injury - Whether Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 should be overruled.

Words and phrases – "breach of duty" - "calculus of negligence".

Police Service Act 1990 (NSW) – s 201.

New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57

229 CLR 638; 81 ALJR 427; 231 ALR 435
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Heydon, Crennan JJ
Date: 12 Dec 2006 Case Number: S227/2006
Tort – Trespass – Whether recognition of occupiers' rights of quiet enjoyment of land an appropriate consideration when awarding damages.

Damages – Aggravated damages – Exemplary damages – Where assault and trespass committed by police officers – Whether an award of general damages, aggravated and exemplary damages involves punishment twice for the same wrong.

Damages – Exemplary damages – Vicarious liability – Where the Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 (NSW) and the Police Legislation Amendment (Civil Liability) Act 2003 (NSW) assigned liability of police officers to the Crown – Whether award of exemplary or aggravated damages against the Crown appropriate.

Words and phrases – "double punishment", "aggravated damages", "exemplary damages", "vicarious liability".

Crown Proceedings Act 1988 (NSW) – s 5.

Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 (NSW) – ss 6, 8, 9B, 9G(2).

Police Legislation Amendment (Civil Liability) Act 2003 (NSW).

New South Wales v Lepore [2003] HCA 4

212 CLR 511; 77 ALJR 558; 195 ALR 412
Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan JJ
Date: 6 Feb 2003 Case Number: S108/2002 B20/2002 B21/2002
Negligence – Liability of school authority - Alleged sexual assault on pupil by teacher - Whether school authority in breach of non-delegable duty of care - Concept of non-delegable duty - Whether school authority vicariously liable - Test for imposition of vicarious liability.

Practice and procedure – Trial - Negligence - Trial of issues of liability and damage severed - Failure to make necessary findings of fact - Retrial.

Words and phrases – "non-delegable duty", "vicarious liability".

Negligence – Liability of school authority - Sexual assault on pupil by teacher - Whether school authority in breach of non-delegable duty of care - Concept of non-delegable duty - Whether school authority vicariously liable - Test for imposition of vicarious liability.

Words and phrases – "non-delegable duty", "vicarious liability".

New South Wales v Williamson [2012] HCA 57

87 ALJR 154; 293 ALR 440
French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell JJ
Date: 12 Dec 2012 Case Number: S416/2011
Costs – Limit on maximum costs in connection with claim for "personal injury damages" – Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), s 338 – Where "personal injury damages" defined to have same meaning as in Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), Pt 2 – Whether maximum costs limitation applies to claims for personal injury damages resulting from intentional acts.

Costs – Limit on maximum costs in connection with claim for "personal injury damages" – Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), s 338 – Claim for false imprisonment not claim for "personal injury damages" – Where such claim is included in claim for damages and not severable part of claim, the claim for damages not claim for "personal injury damages".

Statutory interpretation – Principles – Reading provision in context – Whether, when operative statute adopts term in source statute, account must be taken of operation of term in source statute – Effect of amendments to statute.

Words and phrases – "award of personal injury damages", "claim for personal injury damages", "false imprisonment", "maximum costs", "personal injury damages", "same meaning".

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) – Pt 2, ss 3B, 11.

Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) – Pt 3. 2 Div 9, ss 337, 338.

Newcrest Mining Limited v Thornton [2012] HCA 60

87 ALJR 198; 293 ALR 493
French CJ, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell JJ
Date: 13 Dec 2012 Case Number: P59/2011
Negligence – Damages – Statutory limit on recoverability of damages – Section 7(1)(b) of Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors' Contribution) Act 1947 (WA) provides that person bringing more than one action in respect of damage suffered as the result of a tort cannot recover more than "the amount of the damages awarded by the judgment first given" – Settlement of claim against concurrent tortfeasor given effect by consent judgment – Subsequent claim brought against different concurrent tortfeasor – Whether statutory limitation on recoverability of damages applied to subsequent claim.

Words and phrases – "award", "consent judgment", "damages awarded by the judgment first given".

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors' Contribution) Act 1947 (WA) – s 7(1)(b).

News Limited v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Limited [2003] HCA 45

215 CLR 563; 77 ALJR 1515; 200 ALR 157
Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Callinan JJ
Date: 13 Aug 2003 Case Number: S34/2002
Trade practices – Exclusionary provisions - Merger of competing sporting competitions - Provision that no more than a certain number of teams participate in new competition - Whether provision included for purpose of preventing, restricting or limiting supply of goods or services to, or acquisition of goods or services from, particular persons or classes of persons - Test for determining purpose - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 4D, 45(2)(a)(i), 45(2)(b)(i).

Practice and procedure – Interveners - Whether intervener may advance on appeal argument not adopted by parties to appeal.

Words and phrases – "purpose", "particular persons or classes of persons", "preventing, restricting or limiting".

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – ss 4D, 4F, 45(2)(a)(i), 45(2)(b)(i).

Ng v The Queen [2003] HCA 20

217 CLR 521; 77 ALJR 967
Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon JJ
Date: 10 Apr 2003 Case Number: M148/2002
Constitutional law (Cth) – Law of the Commonwealth – Indictable offence – Trial by jury – Whether State law requiring, by ballot, a reduction in the number of jurors from 15 to 12 prior to commencement of jury deliberations contravenes s 80 of the Constitution – Whether State law exempting foreperson from removal from jury by ballot contravenes s 80 of the Constitution.

Constitution – s 80.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – s 68.

Juries Act 1967 (Vic) – ss 14, 14A, 48A.

Nguyen v The Queen [2013] HCA 32

87 ALJR 853; 298 ALR 649
French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler, Keane JJ
Date: 27 Jun 2013 Case Number: M30/2013
Criminal law – Murder – Practice and procedure – Directions to jury – Available alternative charge – Whether position of appellant and co-accused sufficiently distinguishable to affect adequacy of directions to jury – Whether reasonably open to jury to return alternative verdict of manslaughter – Whether failure to leave alternative verdict to jury constituted wrong decision on question of law – Whether substantial miscarriage of justice occurred.

Words and phrases – "alternative verdict of manslaughter", "substantial miscarriage of justice".

Nguyen v The Queen [2016] HCA 17

Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon JJ
Date: 4 May 2016 Case Number: S271/2015
Criminal law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Excessive self-defence – Where deceased a police officer – Where appellant taken to have shot deceased in honest but mistaken belief that deceased was person posing as police officer with intent to rob appellant – Whether sentencing judge erred in assessment of objective gravity of offence by taking into account absence of circumstance which if present would render subject offence a different offence – Relevance of R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383.

Criminal law – Sentencing – Totality principle – Where appellant convicted of manslaughter and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – Whether open to sentencing judge to impose wholly concurrent sentences – Whether appellate court erred in partially accumulating sentences – Whether sentence imposed manifestly inadequate.

Words and phrases – "accumulation", "concurrency", "De Simoni principle", "manifestly inadequate", "objective gravity", "totality".

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – ss 3A(a), 21A(1).

NH v Director of Public Prosecutions [2016] HCA 33

French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Nettle, Gordon JJ
Date: 31 Aug 2016 Case Number: A14/2016 A15/2016 A16/2016 A19/2016
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.

Now Showing items 661 to 680  Previous Page   Next Page

Back to the top