Johnson v. The Queen
Case No.
A9/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
24/11/2015 Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Sulan J, Peek J & Stanley J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Evidence – Probative value – Doli incapax – Where jury convicted appellant of five counts of sexual offences against younger sister – Where Court of Criminal Appeal quashed convictions in respect of count 1 (“shed incident”) because prosecution failed to rebut presumption of doli incapax and count 3 (persistent sexual exploitation) because evidence did not identify any particular act – Where Court of Criminal Appeal upheld remaining convictions – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred by failing to set aside remaining convictions because evidence led in respect of courts 1 and 3 inadmissible in respect of other counts or permissible use not sufficiently identified – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred in failing to find substantial miscarriage of justice.
Documents
16/02/2018 Hearing (SLA, Brisbane v/link Adelaide)
02/03/2018 Notice of appeal
06/04/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)
06/04/2018 Chronology (Appellant)
04/05/2018 Written submissions (Respondent)
25/05/2018 Reply (Appellant)
20/06/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Perth)
20/06/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
20/06/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
17/10/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Amaca Pty Limited v. Latz
Latz v. Amaca Pty Limited
Case Nos.
A8/2018 and A7/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
30/10/2017 Supreme Court of South Australia (Full Court) (Blue J, Stanley J, Hinton J)
Catchwords
Torts – Personal injury – Damages – Future economic loss – Where primary judge concluded plaintiff’s mesothelioma caused by asbestos emanating from products manufactured by defendant – Where primary judge awarded damages for loss of expectation of receiving age pension and superannuation pension during “lost years” – Where majority of Full Court held primary judge correctly awarded damages for future economic loss but reduced allowance for superannuation pension – Whether majority of Full Court erred in failing to find primary judge erred in awarding damages for future economic loss during “lost years” – Whether Full Court erred in including allowance for loss of expectation of receiving age pension and superannuation pension – Whether Full Court erred in deducting benefit payable to partner upon death from allowance for loss of expectation of receiving superannuation pension.
Documents
16/02/2018 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
20/02/2018 Notice of appeal
16/03/2018 Written submissions (Amaca Pty Ltd)
16/03/2018 Chronology (Amaca Pty Ltd)
28/03/2018 Written submissions (Mr Latz)
06/04/2018 Reply
17/04/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
17/04/2018 Outline of oral argument (Amaca Pty Ltd)
17/04/2018 Outline of oral argument (Mr Latz)
11/05/2018 Hearing (Full Court) - orders pronounced
13/06/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)
In the matter of questions referred to the Court of Disputed Returns pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) concerning
Senator Katy Gallagher
Case No.
C32/2017
Case Information
Catchwords
Questions referred by the Senate - Court of Disputed Returns - Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) - s376, s377 - Qualification of Senator - Constitution - s44(i)
Questions:
- whether, by reason of s 44(i) of the Constitution, there is a vacancy in the representation for the Australian Capital Territory in the Senate for the place for which Katy Gallagher was returned;
- if the answer to Question (a) is “yes”, by what means and in what manner that vacancy should be filled;
- what directions and other orders, if any, should the Court make in order to hear and finally dispose of this reference; and
- what, if any, orders should be made as to the costs of these proceedings.
Documents
07/12/2017 Reference from the President of the Senate
22/12/2017 Notice of constitutional matter (Senator Gallagher)
19/01/2018 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane v/link Melbourne and Sydney)
12/02/2018 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra)
26/02/2018 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
05/03/2018 Written submissions (Senator Gallagher)
09/03/2018 Reply (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
14/03/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/03/2018 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
14/03/2018 Outline of oral argument (Senator Gallagher)
09/05/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)
16/05/2018 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra)
23/05/2018 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane v/link Sydney and Melbourne)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: DL v. The Queen (South Australia)
Date: 15 February 2018
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 2h 13m
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: WET044 v. Republic of Nauru
Date: 14 February 2018
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 3h 13m
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.