BDO v. The Queen
Case No.
B52/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
15/10/2021 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Sofronoff P, Bowskill SJA and Boddice J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Criminal liability and capacity – Doli incapax – Where High Court in RP v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 641 identified "knowledge of moral wrongness" as focus of doli incapax inquiry – Where s 29 of Criminal Code (Qld) provides age of maturity – Whether statement of principles on doli incapax at common law articulated in RP v The Queen apply to s 29 of Criminal Code (Qld).
Criminal practice – Appeal – Miscarriage of justice – Application of proviso that no substantial miscarriage of justice actually occurred – Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E(1) – Where, at trial, trial judge proceeded on mistaken view that during entire period reflected on indictment, s 349(3) of Criminal Code deemed child under age of 12 unable to consent – Where s 349(3) did not come into force until mid-way through charge period – Where Court of Appeal held trial judge's direction erroneous insofar as any of appellant's acts took place prior to commencement of s 349(3) – Where Court of Appeal held no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred – Whether proviso applies where, by judicial error, Crown relieved of proving contested element of offence.
Documents*
21/10/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
03/11/2022 Notice of appeal
09/12/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
09/12/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
22/12/2022 Proposed submissions seeking leave to be heard as amicus curiae (Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia Ltd)
13/01/2023 Written submissions (Respondent) (redacted copy provided 30/3/23)
03/02/2023 Reply
20/04/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
20/04/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
20/04/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
17/05/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
HCF v. The Queen
Case No.
B50/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
03/09/2021 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Morrison & Mullins JJA, North J)
Catchwords
Criminal practice – Miscarriage of justice – Application of proviso that no substantial miscarriage of justice actually occurred – Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E(1) – Jury misconduct – Independent research – Where jury disobeyed trial judge's directions that: (1) prohibited independent research; and (2) required discovery by other jurors of any such misconduct – Where sheriff investigated juror misconduct pursuant to s 70(7) of Jury At 1995 (Qld) and produced report provided to parties before appeal heard – Whether substantial miscarriage of justice occasioned by proven disobedience by jurors of trial judge's direction – Whether verdicts of guilty were true for whole jury in circumstances where only five of twelve jurors responded to sheriff's investigation – Whether proviso applies where jury fails to obey judicial directions.
Documents*
14/10/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
28/10/2022 Notice of appeal
02/12/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
02/12/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
13/01/2023 Written submissions (Respondent)
14/04/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/04/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
14/04/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
02/06/2023 Supplementary written submissions (Appellant)
02/06/2023 Supplementary written submissions (Respondent)
15/11/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Davis v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Ors; DCM20 v. Secretary of Department of Home Affairs & Anor
Date: 20 October 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 3h 47m
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
Case: BRYANT & ORS AS LIQUIDATORS OF GUNNS LIMITED AND AUSPINE LIMITED V BADENOCH INTEGRATED LOGGING PTY LTD
Date: 18 October 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 02m
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
Case: SWEARING IN OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE JAYNE MARGARET JAGOT AS A JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Date: 17 October 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 0h 48m
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.