Scam alert – fraudulent email address ‘subpoena@hcourt.gov.au’

The Court is aware of a scam involving the use of a fraudulent email address purporting to be an official High Court email address – ‘subpoena@hcourt.gov.au’ 

This email address is not associated with, authorised by, or operated by the Court. 

Recipients of emails from this account should exercise caution and should not click on links, open attachments or provide personal or financial information. 

Momcilovic v. The Queen and Ors

Case No. M134/2010
Case information

Lower Court Judgment

17/03/2010 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal)(Maxwell P, Ashley & Neave JJA)

[2010] VSCA 50

Catchwords

 Criminal law — Particular offences — Drug offences — Possession — — Where person deemed to be in possession of drugs “upon any land or premises” occupied by person, unless person satisfies court to the contrary: Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) (“the Act”) s 5 — Whether s 5 of the Act creates legal onus on accused to disprove possession on balance of probabilities or evidential onus to show that he or she was not in possession.

Criminal law — Appeal — Grounds of appeal — Conduct of trial judge — Misdirection or non-direction — Where drugs found in applicant’s home — Where applicant and her partner gave evidence that drugs were her partner’s and that applicant had no knowledge of them — Whether trial judge should have directed jury that prosecution must prove applicant’s knowledge of drugs in order to prove possession.

Human rights — Presumption of innocence — Statutory reversal of burden of proof of possession of drugs — Where Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (“Charter”) s 32 provides “[s]o far as it is possible to do so consistently with their purpose, all statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights” — Whether “possible” to interpret s 5 of the Act compatibly with right to presumption of innocence — Charter ss 7(2), 25(1), 32(1).

Statutes — Acts of Parliament — Interpretation — Function of courts — Whether s 32 of Charter creates “special rule of interpretation” allowing court to depart from legislative intention of enacting Parliament to ensure compatibility with human rights — Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30.

Constitutional law — Operation and effect of Commonwealth Constitution — Chapter III — Federal jurisdiction of State courts — Local limitations of State court — Whether s 32 of the Charter confers a legislative function on State courts — Whether institutional integrity of State courts impaired — Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51.

High Court and Federal Court — High Court of Australia — Appellate jurisdiction — Where relief sought includes order setting aside declaration of inconsistent interpretation under s 36 of Charter made by intermediate appellate court — Whether High Court has jurisdiction under s 73 of Constitution to grant relief sought.

Short Particulars

Documents

03/09/2010 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)

24/09/2010 Notice of appeal

28/09/2010 Notice of constitutional matter

29/11/2010 Notice of constitutional matter

21/01/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)

21/01/2011 Chronology

27/01/2011 Written submissions (First Respondent)

27/01/2011 Written submissions (Second Respondent)

27/01/2011 Written submissions (Third Respondent)

31/01/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)

31/01/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia)

31/01/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales)

31/01/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia)

31/01/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General Australian Capital Territory)

31/01/2011 Written submissions (Seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae to Human Rights Law Resource Centre Ltd)

03/02/2011 Reply

08/02/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

09/02/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

10/02/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

17/02/2011 Additional written submissions (Appellant)

23/02/2011 Supplementary written submissions (Third Respondent)

01/03/2011 Supplementary written submissions (First Respondent)

03/03/2011 Supplementary written submissions (Second Respondent)

03/03/2011 Supplementary written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)

18/03/2011 Submissions in answer to the Court's questions (Appellant)

25/03/2011 Submissions in answer to the Court's questions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia)

28/03/2011 Submissions in answer to the Court's questions (First Respondent)

28/03/2011 Submissions in answer to the Court's questions (Second Respondent)

28/03/2011 Submissions in answer to the Court's questions (Third Respondent)

28/03/2011 Joint submissions in answer to the Court's questions 1 to 3 (Second Respondent and the Attorneys-General for the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory)

28/03/2011 Submissions in answer to the Court's questions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)

28/03/2011 Submissions in answer to the Court's questions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia)

28/03/2011 Submissions in answer to the Court's questions (Human Rights Law Resource Centre Ltd)

07/06/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

08/09/2011 Judgment  (Judgment summary)