Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Cases:
Date: 28 February 2017
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 43m
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.
State of New South Wales v. DC & Anor
Case No.
S35/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
10/08/2016 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Basten JA, Ward JA, Sackville AJA)
Catchwords
Negligence – Duty of care – Vicarious liability – Where stepfather sexually abused respondents – Where Department removed respondents after receiving complaint from one of the respondents – Where stepfather continued to have contact with respondents – Children Welfare Act 1939 (NSW) s 148B – Whether appellant owed duty of care to respondents that extended to reporting allegations against stepfather to police – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to identify basis upon which appellant liable directly or vicariously in circumstances where no finding that any officer negligent.
Documents
10/02/2017 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Sydney)
23/02/2017 Notice of appeal
17/03/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
17/03/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
07/04/2017 Written submissions (Respondents)
07/04/2017 Chronology (Respondents)
21/04/2017 Reply
10/05/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/06/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
The Queen v. Holliday
Case No.
C3/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
26/08/2016 Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Court of Appeal) (Murrell CJ, Refshauge J, Wigney J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Where respondent alleged to have incited the procurement of another person to commit the offence of kidnapping – Whether offence of incitement under Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 47 can be committed by inciting another person to procure a third person to commit an offence – Whether offence of incitement complete at the point of the urging – Whether Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45(2)(a) and 45(3) constitute a “limitation or qualifying provision” for purposes of s 47(5) such that offence of incitement not complete until offence of kidnapping committed.
Documents
10/02/2017 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Sydney)
24/02/2017 Notice of appeal
17/03/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
17/03/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
06/04/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
20/04/2017 Reply
15/06/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Sydney)
06/09/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Chiro v. The Queen
Case No.
A9/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
30/09/2015 Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Vanstone J, Kelly J, David AJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Sentencing – Where appellant convicted by jury of “persistent sexual exploitation of a child” pursuant to Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 50 – Where complainant gave evidence of sexual exploitation that ranged in seriousness – Where trial judge directed jury they may convict if unanimously satisfied that appellant kissed complainant in circumstances amounting to indecent assault on two occasions – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred in failing to hold trial judge erred in failing to ask jury which sexual offences subject of unanimous guilty verdict for purposes of sentencing – Whether in absence of such answer it was open to sentencing jury to sentence on basis that appellant guilty of all alleged sexual offending.
Documents
10/02/2017 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Adelaide)
24/02/2017 Notice of appeal
17/03/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
17/03/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
07/04/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
21/04/2017 Reply
20/06/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Adelaide)
21/06/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Adelaide)
13/09/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Van Beelen v. The Queen
Case No.
A8/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
13/07/2016 Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Kourakis CJ, Vanstone J & Kelly J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 353A – Second or subsequent appeal where Court satisfied fresh and compelling evidence that should in interests of justice be considered – Where appellant seeks to appeal against conviction of murder on basis that new evidence shows expert evidence as to time of victim’s death flawed – Whether “fresh” and “compelling” evidence – Whether majority erred in holding further attack on expert evidence precluded because expert evidence contested at trial – Whether evidence could have been adduced at original trial –Whether majority erred in finding principle of finality relevant to s 353A appeal – Whether evidence is “substantial” – Whether in the “interests of justice” to allow appeal.
Documents
10/02/2017 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Adelaide)
24/02/2017 Notice of appeal
17/03/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
17/03/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
07/04/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
21/04/2017 Reply
21/06/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Adelaide)
22/06/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Adelaide)
08/11/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)