The Queen v. Dickman
Case No.
M162/2016
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/11/2015 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Whelan, Priest JJA & Croucher AJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Evidence – Identification Evidence – Where respondent was identified using a photoboard – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) – Where respondent was convicted of intentionally causing serious injury and making a threat to kill – Where Court of Appeal by majority quashed conviction and ordered a new trial – Whether Court of Appeal erred in in holding that the trial judge erred in failing to exercise discretion to exclude identification evidence.
Documents
18/11/2016 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
02/12/2016 Notice of appeal
23/12/2016 Written submissions (Appellant)
23/12/2016 Chronology (Appellant)
27/01/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
10/02/2016 Reply
06/04/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
21/06/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Transport Accident Commission v. Katanas
Case No.
M160/2016
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/06/2016 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Ashley, Osborn & Kaye JJA)
Catchwords
Compensation – Transport accident – Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic) – Meaning of “serious injury” – Test for establishing whether an injury is a “serious injury” within the meaning of s 93 of the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic) – Application of Humphries v Poljak [1992] 2 VR 129 – Whether Court of Appeal applied correct test.
Documents
18/11/2016 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
01/12/2016 Notice of appeal
09/12/2016 Written submissions (Appellant)
09/12/2016 Chronology (Appellant)
27/01/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
10/02/2017 Reply
11/05/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
17/08/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
The Queen v. Dookheea
Case No.
M159/2016
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
12/04/2016 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Maxwell P, Redlich JA & Croucher AJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Jury directions – Where respondent was convicted of murder – Where respondent admitted to the unlawful killing of the victim – Where issue at trial was whether respondent had requisite intention – Where trial judge explained to jury "beyond reasonable doubt" – Where Court of Appeal allowed appeal and ordered re-trial – Whether Court of Appeal erred in allowing appeal.
Documents
18/11/2016 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
30/11/2016 Notice of appeal
16/12/2016 Written submissions (Appellant)
16/12/2016 Chronology (Appellant)
27/01/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
10/02/2017 Reply
19/06/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Adelaide)
13/09/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Commissioner of Taxation v. Jayasinghe
Case No.
S275/2016
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
9/06/2016 Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Pagone J, Davies J)
Catchwords
Taxation – International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 (Cth) – Where respondent is civil engineer engaged by the United Nations – Where under the Act and Regulations made under the Act a person who “holds an office in an international organisation” engages taxation exemptions - Whether respondent is a person who “holds and office in an international organisation” under the Act and Regulations made under the Act.
Documents
16/11/2016 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
30/11/2016 Notice of appeal
21/12/2016 Written submissions (Appellant)
21/12/2016 Chronology (Appellant)
25/01/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
07/02/2017 Reply
29/03/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
09/08/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
SZTAL v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
SZTGM v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Case No.
S272/2016; S273/2016
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
20/05/2016 Federal Court of Australia (Kenny J, Buchanan J, Nicholas J)
Catchwords
Migration – Statutory interpretation – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – s 36(2)(aa), complementary protection criteria – Where appellants are nationals of Sri Lanka – Where appellants left Sri Lanka illegally – Where Tribunal accepted that it was likely that the appellants would be jailed upon return to Sri Lanka – Whether the Full Court of the Federal Court erred in holding that the requirement of international infliction of “cruel and inhuman treatment of punishment” or “degrading treatment or punishment” requires proof of a subjective intention.
Documents
16/11/2016 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
30/11/2016 Notice of appeal
06/12/2016 Submitting appearance (Second Respondent)
21/12/2016 Written submissions (Appellants)
21/12/2016 Chronology (Appellants)
25/01/2017 Written submissions (First Respondent)
07/02/2017 Reply
05/04/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/09/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)