The Queen v. Rolfe
Case No.
D2/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
13/08/2021 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Southwood, Kelly, Blokland JJ, Mildren and Hiley AJJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Police – Use of lethal force by police officer – Protection from criminal liability – Where respondent police officer shot person violently resisting arrest three times, resulting in death – Where respondent charged with murder and, in alternative, manslaughter – Where respondent sought to rely on defence in s 148B of Police Administration Act 1978 (NT) – Where s 148B provided protection from criminal liability for act done by person in good faith in exercise of power or function under Act – Where s 5 of Act provided “core functions” of NT Police Force includes protection of life and prevention of criminal offences – Where availability of s 148B immunity referred to NT Full Court, which held respondent may rely on s 148B immunity – Whether “performance of function by person” in s 148B includes “core functions of Police Force” in s 5 – Whether respondent may rely on s 148B immunity.
Documents
19/08/2021 Application for special leave to appeal
10/09/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra and video connection)
01/10/2021 Written submissions (Applicant)
01/10/2021 Chronology (Applicant)
15/10/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
25/10/2021 Reply
25/10/2021 Written submissions in response to question (Respondent)
26/10/2021 Written submissions in response to question (Applicant)
02/11/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
02/11/2021 Outline of oral argument (Applicant)
02/11/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
10/11/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Bell v. The Queen
Case No.
A30/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
03/12/2020 Supreme Court of South Australia (Full Court) (Kourakis CJ, Peek and Blue JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Procedure – Stay of proceedings – Powers of Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) – Where, in 2014, ICAC commenced investigation into applicant – Where, in 2017, ICAC forwarded matter to Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and provided evidentiary material gathered in course of investigation – Where DPP decided to prosecute applicant – Where ICAC officers assisted DPP to prepare for trial – Where applicant applied for permanent stay – Where District Court dismissed application and Full Court dismissed appeal – Whether Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 (SA) authorised ICAC to refer matter, provide evidentiary material and otherwise assist DPP in prosecution – Whether ICAC conduct abuse of process justifying permanent stay.
Documents*
13/08/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video-connection)
27/08 /2021 Notice of appeal
01/10/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
01/10/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
29/10/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
19/11/2021 Reply
15/03/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (includes pronouncement of orders) (Audio-visual recording)
15/03/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
15/03/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
Citta Hobart Pty Ltd & Anor v. Cawthorn
Case No.
H7/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/12/2020 Supreme Court of Tasmania (Full Court) (Blow CJ, Wood and Estcourt JJ)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Federal jurisdiction – Jurisdiction of State Tribunal – Inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws – Discrimination – Disability Discrimination – Where respondent complained to Tasmania Anti-Discrimination Tribunal on basis applicants’ building development constituted disability discrimination under Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) – Where applicants pleaded in defenceinconsistency with Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) pursuant to s 109 of Constitution – Where Tribunal dismissed complaint for lack of jurisdiction because determination of s 109 defence exercise of federal jurisdiction – Where Full Court allowed appeal on basis s 109 defence would not succeed – Whether Full Court applied correct test as to jurisdiction of State Tribunal – Whether Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) inconsistent with Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).
Documents*
13/08/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
27/08/2021 Notice of appeal
01/10/2021 Written submissions (Appellants)
01/10/2021 Chronology (Appellants)
28/10/2021 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales, intervening)
29/10/2021 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, intervening)
12/11/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
24/11/2021 Proposed submissions (Australian Human Rights Commission, seeking leave to intervene)
26/11/2021 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia, intervening)
26/11/2021 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania, intervening)
26/11/2021 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening)
26/11/2021 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland, intervening)
26/11/2021 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria, intervening)
03/12/2021 Reply
08/02/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
08/02/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
08/02/2022 Outline of oral argument (Austrlian Human Rights Commission intervening)
08/02/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
09/02/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
07/02/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
08/02/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Queensland intervening)
08/02/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
08/02/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
08/02/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
08/02/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
07/02/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania intervening)
04/05/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Addy v Commissioner of Taxation
Date: 24 June 2021
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 2h 09m
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
Case: Ridd v James Cook University
Date: 23 June 2021
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 3h 07m
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.