BA v. The King
Case No.
S101/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
20/08/2021 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Brereton JA, Fullerton and Adamson JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Breaking and entering – Legal right to enter – Meaning of "breaks" – Where s 112 of Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) provides person who breaks and enters any dwelling-house or other building and commits any serious indictable offence guilty of offence – Where appellant and complainant resided together in apartment occupied pursuant to residential tenancy where both named as lessees – Where relationship broke down and appellant moved out taking most of possessions – Where, when appellant remained co?tenant, appellant entered apartment by breaking down locked door and assaulted complainant – Where appellant charged with offence against s 112 of Crimes Act – Whether person with legal right to enter building capable of being guilty of breaking and entering building for purposes of s 112 of Crimes Act – Whether co?tenant can revoke second co-tenant's permission to enter leased dwelling-house with result that, despite enjoying right of entry under lease, second co?tenant may be guilty of breaking and entering – Whether permission of occupant without legal entitlement to occupy be determinative of whether person with legal right of immediate possession breaks into building for purposes of s 112 of Crimes Act.
Documents*
17/06/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
01/07/2022 Notice of appeal
05/08/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
05/08/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
06/09/2022 Amended Written submissions (Respondent)
06/09/2022 Notice of Contention (Respondent)
23/09/2022 Reply
07/02/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
07/02/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
07/02/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
10/05/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Mitchell v. The King
Rigney v. The King
Carver v. The King
Tenhoopen v. The King
Case No.
A14/2022; A15/2022; A16/2022, A17/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
10/08/2021 Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Appeal) (Kelly P, Doyle JA and Peek AJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Ancillary liability – Extended joint criminal enterprise – Statutory charges – Where appellants and others entered into agreement to steal amount of cannabis from grow-house and, in furtherance of agreement, one or more of group members inflicted one or more blows to head of person guarding grow-house who died of injuries – Where appellants charged for contravening s 12A Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ("CCA") and convicted of murder – Where s 12A of CCA provided person who commits intentional act of violence while acting in course or furtherance of major indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for 10 years or more, and thus causes death of another, guilty of murder – Whether principles of joint criminal enterprise apply to statutory charge under s 12A of CCA – Whether, for secondary participant to be guilty of common law murder according to principles of extended joint criminal enterprise, secondary participant must contemplate that co-participant might do act that might cause death of person – Whether, for secondary participant to be guilty of offence against s 12A of CCA, secondary participant must contemplate that co-participant might commit intentional act of violence causing death of person – Whether, for secondary participant to be guilty of offence against s 12A of CCA, sufficient that secondary participant contemplates any act of violence rather than contemplates possibility of death caused by violence.
Documents*
17/06/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video-connection)
30/06/2022 Notice of appeal (Mitchell - A14/2022)
01/07/2022 Notice of appeal (Rigney - A15/2022)
01/07/2022 Notice of appeal (Carver - A16/2022)
01/08/2022 Application for special leave to appeal (Tenhoopen - A17/2022)
05/08/2022 Written submissions (Appellant - A15/2022)
05/08/2022 Chronology (Appellant - A15/2022)
05/08/2022 Written submissions (Appellant - A16/2022)
05/08/2022 Chronology (Appellant - A16/2022)
08/08/2022 Written submissions (Appellant - A14/2022)
08/08/2022 Chronology (Appellant - A14/2022)
18/08/2022 Order referring matter to the Full Court (Tenhoopen - A17/2022)
09/09/2022 Written submissions (Applicant - A17/2022)
09/09/2022 Chronology (Applicant - A17/2022)
23/09/2022 Written submissions (Respondent - all matters)
07/10/2022 Reply (Appellant - A14/2022)
07/10/2022 Reply (Appellant - A15/2022)
07/10/2022 Reply (Applicant - A16/2022)
07/10/2022 Reply (Applicant - A17/2022)
06/12/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/12/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant - A14/2022)
06/12/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant - A15/2022)
06/12/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant - A16/2022)
06/12/2022 Outline of oral argument (Applicant - A17/2022)
06/12/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondent - all matters)
08/03/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Awad v. The Queen
Tambakakis v. The Queen
Case No.
M44/2022; M45/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
15/10/2021 Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal (Priest, McLeish, Niall JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Jury directions – Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) – Where s 44J(b) of Jury Directions Act prohibited trial judge from directing jury that accused gave evidence because: (i) guilty person who gives evidence more likely to be believed; and (ii) innocent person can do nothing more than give evidence – Where appellants arraigned before jury panel, both pleading not guilty to one charge alleging commission of offence of attempt to possess commercial quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drug – Where Crown's case was appellants in joint possession of drugs for period – Where Tambakakis gave sworn evidence – Where trial judge gave jury direction regarding Tambakakis' evidence that Court of Appeal held contrary to s 44J of Jury Directions Act – Where Court of Appeal held, despite direction contrary to s 44J of Jury Directions Act, direction did not result in substantial miscarriage of justice for either appellant – Whether, given impugned direction prohibited by s 44J of Jury Directions Act, substantial miscarriage of justice occurred.
Documents
17/06/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra and video connection)
24/06/2022 Notice of Appeal (Awad)
29/06/2022 Notice of Appeal (Tambakakis)
19/07/2022 Written submissions (Appellant - Awad)
19/07/2022 Chronology (Appellant - Awad)
27/07/2022 Written submissions (Appellant - Tambakakis)
27/07/2022 Chronology (Appellant - Tambakakis)
19/08/2022 Written submissions (Respondent - Awad)
19/08/2022 Written submissions (Respondent - Tambakakis)
24/08/2022 Reply (Appellant - Awad)
26/08/2022 Reply (Appellant - Tambakakis)
13/09/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/09/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant - Awad)
13/09/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant - Tambakakis)
13/09/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondent in both matters)
09/11/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd V Commissioner Of Patents
Date: 09 June 2022 , 10 June 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 33m, 2h 31m,
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
09 June 2022
10 June 2022
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
Case: SDCV v Director-General of Security & Anor
Date: 07 June 2022 , 08 June 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 05m,4h 18m,
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
07 June 2022
08 June 2022
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.