Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v. Hart & Ors
Commonwealth of Australia v. Yak 3 Investments Pty Ltd as Trustee for Yak 3 Discretionary Trust & Ors
Commonwealth of Australia & Anor v. Flying Fighters Pty Ltd & Ors

Case No.

B21/2017, B22/2017, B23/2017

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

29/08/2016 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Morrison JA, Douglas J, P Lyons J)

[2016] QCA 215 and [2016] QCA 284

Catchwords

Criminal law – Proceeds of crime – Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) – Where Commonwealth obtained restraining order under s 17 of the Act over property under first respondent’s effective control – Where first respondent subsequently found guilty of nine offences of defrauding the Commonwealth – Where property forfeited to Commonwealth under s 92 – Where Commonwealth granted pecuniary penalty order (PPO) against first respondent under s 116 – Where Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions sought declaration under s 141 that forfeited property available to satisfy PPO – Where primary judge dismissed application under s 141 on discretionary grounds – Where majority of Court of Appeal dismissed appeal on basis that s 141 did not apply to property the subject of a restraining order under s 17 – Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in holding that s 141 does not apply to property subject to restraining orders under s 17 – Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in construing date of effective control under s 141(1)(c) as date on which application is determined notwithstanding that property was subject of restraining orders under s 17 – Whether primary judge erred in exercising discretion to refuse to make order under s 141.

Documents*

06/04/2017 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)

20/04/2017 Notices of appeal

27/04/2017 Notice of Contention

11/05/2017 Written submissions (Appellants)

11/05/2017 Chronology (Appellants)

23/06/2017 Written submissions (Respondents)

17/07/2017 Reply

14/08/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Brisbane)

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

Koani v. The Queen

Case No.

B20/2017

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

11/11/2016 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (McMurdo P, Gotterson JA, Atkinson J)

[2016] QCA 289

Catchwords

Criminal law – Murder – Criminal negligence – Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss 289 and 23(1)(a) – Where appellant convicted of murder of de facto partner – Where there was evidence that would allow jury to conclude it was reasonably possible that appellant intended only to frighten deceased – Where trial judge directed jury that, if not satisfied discharge of gun resulted from willed act of appellant, jury could still convict for murder if discharge was consequence of omission to perform duty under s 289 to use reasonable care in his control of shotgun and at time of discharge appellant intended to kill victim or cause grievous bodily harm – Whether criminal negligence in breach of s 289 can found a conviction for murder.

Documents*

06/04/2017 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)

20/04/2017 Notice of appeal

11/05/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)

11/05/2017 Chronology (Appellant)

01/06/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)

15/06/2017 Reply

17/08/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Brisbane)

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

Hamra v. The Queen

Case No.

A14/2017

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

8/12/2016 Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Kourakis CJ, Kelly J, Peek J, Nicholson J & Lovell J)

[2016] SASCFC 130

Catchwords

Criminal law – Persistent sexual exploitation of child under Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 50 – Where trial judge held no case to answer because allegations of generalised nature such that it was not possible to identify two or more proved sexual offences within meaning of s 50 – Where Court of Criminal Appeal quashed acquittal and remitted matter for retrial – Whether s 50 requires proof of commission of two or more prescribed sexual offences on particular occasions – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal failed to address appellant’s submission that respondent’s appeal should not be granted having regard to considerations relating to double jeopardy.

Short particulars

Documents*

07/04/2017 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne v/link Adelaide)

21/04/2017 Notice of appeal

21/04/2017 Notice of contention (Respondent)

12/05/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)

12/05/2017 Chronology (Appellant)

29/05/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)

05/06/2017 Reply

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

21/06/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Adelaide)

Craig v. The Queen

Case No.

B24/2017

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

21/06/2016 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Fraser JA, Gotterson JA, Morrison JA)

[2016] QCA 166

Catchwords

Criminal law – Murder – Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 668E – Miscarriage of justice – Where appellant advised by trial counsel that if he gave evidence at trial, he would likely be cross-examined on prior convictions, including manslaughter conviction – Where appellant did not give evidence – Where proposed evidence would have been relevant to defence of provocation and would have raised self-defence – Where Court of Appeal held it was not likely that appellant would have been cross-examined on criminal history – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding erroneous advice did not result in miscarriage of justice – Whether “alternative rational basis” for not giving evidence test appropriate where counsel gave erroneous advice – Whether denial of opportunity to make informed decision as to whether to give evidence amounts to “such a serious breach of the presuppositions of the trial” that the proviso cannot apply.

Documents*

07/04/2017 Hearing (SLA, Brisbane)

20/04/2017 Notice of appeal

12/05/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)

12/05/2017 Chronology (Appellant)

02/06/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)

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

Falzon v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Case No.

S31/2017

Case Information

Catchwords

Constitutional law – Migration – Where plaintiff’s visa cancelled pursuant to Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 501(3A) – Where Minister decided not to revoke cancellation under s 501CA – Whether s 501(3A) is invalid because it purports to confer judicial power of Commonwealth on Minister.  

Documents*

14/02/2017 Application for an order to show cause

14/02/2017 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)

11/04/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane v/link Sydney)

10/05/2017 Written submissions (Plaintiff)

10/05/2017 Chronology (Plaintiff)

07/06/2017 Written submissions (Defendant and Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)

21/06/2017 Reply (Plaintiff)

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

Page 4 of 124