Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Brown & Anor v. The State of Tasmania
Date: 03 May 2017
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 37m
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: Brown & Anor v. The State of Tasmania
Date: 02 May 2017
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 29m
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.
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)
15/08/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Brisbane)
17/08/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Brisbane)
07/02/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)
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)
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)
18/10/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
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)
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.
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)
13/09/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)