Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra

Cases:

Date: 02 March 2017

Transcript: Hearing

AV time: 4h 33m

 

You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.

 

 

 

Terms of use

Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:

(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court.  However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.

(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.

(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.

By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.

 

Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra

Cases:

Date: 28 February 2017

Transcript: Hearing

AV time: 4h 43m

 

You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.

 

 

 

Terms of use

Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:

(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court.  However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.

(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.

(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.

By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.

 

State of New South Wales v. DC & Anor

Case No.

S35/2017

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

10/08/2016 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Basten JA, Ward JA, Sackville AJA)

[2016] NSWCA 198

Catchwords

Negligence – Duty of care – Vicarious liability – Where stepfather sexually abused respondents – Where Department removed respondents after receiving complaint from one of the respondents – Where stepfather continued to have contact with respondents – Children Welfare Act 1939 (NSW) s 148B – Whether appellant owed duty of care to respondents that extended to reporting allegations against stepfather to police – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to identify basis upon which appellant liable directly or vicariously in circumstances where no finding that any officer negligent.

Documents*

10/02/2017 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Sydney)

23/02/2017 Notice of appeal

17/03/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)

17/03/2017 Chronology (Appellant)

07/04/2017 Written submissions (Respondents)

07/04/2017 Chronology (Respondents)

21/04/2017 Reply

10/05/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only. 

The Queen v. Holliday

Case No.

C3/2017

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

26/08/2016 Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Court of Appeal) (Murrell CJ, Refshauge J, Wigney J)

[2016] ACTCA 42

Catchwords

Criminal law – Where respondent alleged to have incited the procurement of another person to commit the offence of kidnapping – Whether offence of incitement under Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 47 can be committed by inciting another person to procure a third person to commit an offence – Whether offence of incitement complete at the point of the urging – Whether Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45(2)(a) and 45(3) constitute a “limitation or qualifying provision” for purposes of s 47(5) such that offence of incitement not complete until offence of kidnapping committed.

Documents*

10/02/2017 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Sydney)

24/02/2017 Notice of appeal

17/03/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)

17/03/2017 Chronology (Appellant)

06/04/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)

20/04/2017 Reply

15/06/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Sydney)

*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only. 

Chiro v. The Queen

Case No.

A9/2017

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

30/09/2015 Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Vanstone J, Kelly J, David AJ)

[2015] SASCFC 142

Catchwords

Criminal law – Sentencing – Where appellant convicted by jury of “persistent sexual exploitation of a child” pursuant to Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 50 – Where complainant gave evidence of sexual exploitation that ranged in seriousness – Where trial judge directed jury they may convict if unanimously satisfied that appellant kissed complainant in circumstances amounting to indecent assault on two occasions – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred in failing to hold trial judge erred in failing to ask jury which sexual offences subject of unanimous guilty verdict for purposes of sentencing – Whether in absence of such answer it was open to sentencing jury to sentence on basis that appellant guilty of all alleged sexual offending.

Documents*

10/02/2017 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Adelaide)

24/02/2017 Notice of appeal

17/03/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)

17/03/2017 Chronology (Appellant)

07/04/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)

21/04/2017 Reply

20/06/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Adelaide)

*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only. 

Page 4 of 121