Strbak v. The Queen
Case No.
B55/2019
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
12/03/2019 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Fraser and McMurdo JJA, and Crow J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Sentencing – Right to silence – Where appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter of four year old son but contested factual basis of conviction – Where sentencing judge applied R v Miller [2004] 1 Qd R 548 which held that sentencing judge may more readily accept or draw inferences from prosecution evidence which is uncontradicted – Where contended before Queensland Court of Appeal that Miller is wrong and should be revisited because it impermissibly infringes on right to silence – Whether refusing to reconsider Miller was constructive failure by Queensland Court of Appeal to exercise its jurisdiction.
Documents*
11/09/2019 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
24/09/2019 Notice of appeal
25/10/2019 Written submissions (Appellant)
25/10/2019 Chronology (Appellant)
15/11/2019 Written submissions (Respondent)
22/11/2019 Reply
06/12/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/12/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
06/12/2019 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
11/12/2019 Amended Notice of appeal
18/03/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)
KMC v. Director of Public Prosecutions (SA)
Case No.
A20/2019
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Ch III of Constitution (Cth) – Invalidity – Where appellant convicted of one count of persistent sexual exploitation of child contrary to s 50 of Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (“CLCA”) – Where CLCA repealed on 24 October 2017 and Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General’s Portfolio) (No 2) Act 2017 (SA) (“Amendment Act”) commenced – Whether s 9(1) of Amendment Act invalid because it impermissibly directs manner or outcome of exercise of appellate jurisdiction, impermissibly impairs institutional integrity of appellate court and/or sentencing court, and/or amounts to or involves an exercise of part of judicial power by Parliament of South Australia in manner contrary to scheme of Ch III of Constitution.
Documents
30/08/2019 Order for Removal of Cause into the High Court (Gordon J)
04/09/2019 Cause removed
04/09/2019 Notice of constitutional matter (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
27/09/2019 Written submissions (Applicant)
27/09/2019 Chronology (Applicant)
25/10/2019 Written submissions (Respondent and the Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
29/10/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania intervening)
29/10/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
30/10/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
30/10/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
15/11/2019 Reply (Applicant)
06/02/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
(Pronouncement of orders included)
06/02/2020 Outline of oral argument (Applicant)
06/02/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondent and the Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
06/02/2020 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
18/03/2020 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
Smethurst & Anor v. Commissioner of Police & Anor
Case No.
S196/2019
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Warrant – Validity of warrant – Form of relief – Implied freedom of political communication – Where members of Australian Federal Police executed search warrant issued under s 3E of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) at residential premises of journalist – Where warrant specified contravention of s 79(3) of Act by journalist – Where order made under s 3LA of Act directed to journalist requiring information and assistance to be provided – Where plaintiffs seek to have warrant and s 3LA order quashed – Whether s 79(3), as it stood on 29 April 2018, invalid on ground that it infringed implied freedom of political communication in Constitution (Cth) – Whether warrant invalid because misstates substance of s 79(3), does not state offence with sufficient precision, and/or s 79(3) was invalid – Whether s 3LA order invalid.
Documents*
26/06/2019 Application for constitutional or other writ
26/06/2019 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiffs)
13/08/2019 Amended application for an order to show cause
30/08/2019 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney v/link Melbourne)
06/09/2019 Order referring matter to Full Court (6/09/2019)
25/09/2019 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
25/09/2019 Chronology (Plaintiffs)
09/10/2019 Written submissions (Australian Human Rights Commission as amicus curiae)
23/10/2019 Written submissions (First defendant and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (intervening))
29/10/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (intervening))
30/10/2019 Notice of constitutional matter (Australian Human Rights Commission)
04/11/2019 Reply
12/11/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/11/2019 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiffs)
12/11/2019 Outline of oral argument (First defendant and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (intervening))
12/11/2019 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (intervening))
12/11/2019 Outline of oral argument (Australian Human Rights Commission as amicus curiae)
13/11/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
04/12/2019 Notice of constitutional matter (First defendant and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (intervening))
17/12/2019 Further written submissions (Plaintiffs)
22/01/2020 Further written submissions (First defendant and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (intervening))
28/01/2020 Further written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (intervening))
31/01/2020 Further reply (Plaintiffs)
15/04/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Nguyen v. The Queen
Singh v. The Queen
Case No.
D15/2019 and D16/2019
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment – Nguyen v. The Queen
29/05/2019 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Kelly J, Blokland J, Barr J)
Lower Court Judgment – Singh v. The Queen
25/03/2019 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Kelly J, Blokland J, Barr J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Prosecutor’s duties regarding “mixed statement” records of interview containing both inculpatory and exculpatory material – Where Crown chose not to adduce applicant’s record of interview of 8 June 2017 – Whether Crown’s decision not to adduce record of interview deprived applicant of reasonable chance of acquittal – Whether prosecution ordinarily required by duty of fairness to tender “mixed statement” record of interview at trial of accused when it is admissible – Whether prosecution permitted to decline to tender “mixed statement” records of interview for purely tactical reasons.
Documents
16/08/2019 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
30/08/2019 Notice of appeal
04/10/2019 Written submissions (Appellant-Nguyen)
04/10/2019 Chronology (Appellant-Nguyen)
04/10/2019 Written submissions (Appellant-Singh)
04/10/2019 Chronology (Appellant-Singh)
18/10/2019 Written submissions (North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae in Nguyen)
18/10/2019 Written submissions (North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae in Singh)
01/11/2019 Written submissions (Respondent-Singh)
04/11/2019 Written submissions (Respondent-Nguyen)
15/11/2019 Written submissions (Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of Western Australia seeking leave to intervene - Nguyen)
15/11/2019 Written submissions (Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of Western Australia seeking leave to intervene - Singh)
25/11/2019 Reply (Appellant-Nguyen)
25/11/2019 Reply (Appellant-Singh)
17/03/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
17/03/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant-Nguyen)
17/03/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant-Singh)
17/03/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondent-Nguyen)
17/03/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondent-Singh)
30/06/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary) (Nguyen)
05/08/2020 Judgment (Singh)
Binsaris v. Northern Territory of Australia
Webster v. Northern Territory of Australia
O’Shea v. Northern Territory of Australia
Austral v. Northern Territory of Australia
Case No.
D11/2019, D12/2019, D13/2019 and D14/2019
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/02/2019 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Southwood J, Riley J, Graham AJ)
[2019] NTCA 1 (see also [2019] NTCA 3 and [2019] NTCA 4)
Catchwords
Statutory interpretation – Power of superintendent of youth detention centre – Use of CS gas (form of tear gas) in youth detention centre – Where prison officers called upon to assist at youth detention centre – Where CS gas was deployed – Whether exemption in s 12(2) of Weapons Control Act (NT) applied to deployment of CS gas by prison officer at youth detention centre – Whether superintendent’s general power under s 152(1) of Youth Justice Act (NT) limited by s 153(3).
Documents*
16/08/2019 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
30/08/2019 Notice of appeal
04/10/2019 Joint written submissions (Appellants)
04/10/2019 Joint chronology (Appellants)
16/10/2019 Summonses seeking leave to file amended Notices of Appeal (Appellants)
01/11/2019 Written submissions (Respondent's consolidated)
22/11/2019 Reply and submissions on the notice of contention (Appellants)
18/03/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
18/03/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
18/03/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
03/06/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)