Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Rizeq v. The State of Western Australia
Date: 01 February 2017
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 27m
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
Ceremonial Sitting To Mark The Occasion Of The Swearing In Of The Honourable James Joshua Edelman As A Justice Of The High Court Of Australia
Date: 30 January 2017
Transcript: available
AV time: 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.
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Ceremonial Sitting To Mark The Occasion Of The Appointment Of The Honourable Susan Mary Kiefel AC As Chief Justice Of The High Court Of Australia
Date: 30 January 2017
Transcript: available
AV time: 49m
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.
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Dalgliesh (a pseudonym)
Case No.
M1/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
29/06/2016 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Maxwell ACJ, Redlich and Beach JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Sentencing – Where respondent convicted on several counts of incest and sexual penetration of a child under 16 – Where offending against daughters of de facto partner – Where 13-year-old victim fell pregnant – Where pregnancy subsequently terminated - Where total effective sentence 5y 6m – Where sentence 3y 6m on charge involving pregnancy – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate on current sentencing principles.
Documents
16/12/2016 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Melbourne)
03/01/2017 Notice of appeal
27/01/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
27/01/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
17/02/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
03/03/2017 Reply
14/06/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Sydney)
11/10/2017 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
GAX v. The Queen
Case No.
B72/2016
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
22/07/2016 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (McMurdo P, Morrison JA, Atkinson J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Where appellant was convicted of one count of indecently dealing with a child under the age of 16 years who was his lineal descendant – Where the complainant gave evidence that the appellant, her father, lay in bed with her and that his fingers were down near where her underwear was supposed to be – Where the complainant’s mother and sister also gave evidence of finding the appellant in bed with the complaint – Where there was some inconsistencies between the accounts of the complainant, the mother and the sister – Where majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether majority of the Court of Appeal failed to make an independent assessment of the sufficiency and quality of the evidence.
Documents
16/12/2016 Hearing (SLA, Sydney v/link Brisbane)
22/12/2016 Notice of appeal
27/01/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
27/01/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
16/02/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
05/05/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
21/06/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)