James v. The Queen
Case No.
M102/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
19/03/2013 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Maxwell P, Whelan & Priest JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Alternative verdicts – Appellant convicted of intentionally causing serious injury – On Appeal appellant contended that trial judge’s failure to leave to jury possible alternative verdict of intentionally causing injury (as opposed to serious injury) constituted miscarriage of justice – Court of Appeal rejected contention – Defence counsel had chosen not to leave alternative verdict open for forensic reasons – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that trial judge not bound to leave the alternative verdict open for consideration by jury – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that trial judge’s duty to leave to jury for its consideration lesser alternative verdicts, that are realistically, or fairly and practically open, does not transcend forensic decision of trial counsel.
Documents
16/08/2013 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
30/08/2013 Notice of appeal
20/09/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
20/09/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
26/09/2013 Amended Written submissions (Appellant)
11/10/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
25/10/2013 Reply
07/11/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
05/03/2014 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. TPG Internet Pty Ltd
Case No.
M98/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
20/12/2012 Federal Court of Australia (Jacobson J, Bennett J, Gilmour J)
[2012] FCAFC 190; [2013] FCAFC 37
Catchwords
Competition law – Restrictive trade practices – Misleading or deceptive conduct – False or misleading statements – Trade Practice Act 1974 (Cth) (“TPA”) and Australian Consumer Law, Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (“CCA”) – Full Federal Court overturned in part decision of trial judge that TPG had breached the TPA and CCA – Advertisements represented that internet service could be acquired for $29.99 a month with no additional service or monthly charge and no set up fee – Service was only available in conjunction with a home telephone line that cost an additional $30 a month (the 'bundling condition), as well as upfront charges and a deposit (the 'setup fee condition') – Whether ordinary and reasonable consumer would have starting assumption that an advertised internet service was bundled with telephony services – Whether consumers must consider whole of an advertisement (including small print or quickly spoken detail) in order to correct what would otherwise be misleading headline representations.
Competition law – Penalties – Pecuniary penalties – Full Court reduced pecuniary penalty from $2,000,000 to $500,000 – Whether Full Court failed to adequately consider specific and general deterrence in imposing reduced pecuniary penalty – Whether reduced pecuniary penalty manifestly inadequate.
Documents
16/08/2013 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
30/08/2013 Notice of appeal
20/09/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
20/09/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
11/10/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
25/10/2013 Reply
01/11/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/12/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Barbaro v. The Queen
Case No.
M3/2013
Related matter
M1/2013 – Zirilli v. The Queen
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
30/11/2012 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Maxwell P, Harper JA & T Forrest AJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Sentencing – Crown submission on sentencing range – Appellants convicted of conspiracy to traffic in commercial quantity of controlled drug and sentenced to 26 years imprisonment – Trial judge refused to hear prosecution’s submission on appropriate sentencing range and imposed sentences higher than the range the prosecutor would have proposed – Whether trial judge erred in refusing to hear the prosecution’s submission on sentencing range – Whether refusal to hear prosecutions’ submission on sentencing range constitutes a denial of procedural fairness – Whether prosecution’s submission on sentencing range was a relevant consideration in sentencing – Whether R v MacNeil-Brown (2008) 20 VR 677 is good law.
Documents
02/01/2013 Application for special leave to appeal
16/08/2013 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
23/09/2013 Chronology (Applicant)
26/09/2013 Amended written submissions (Applicant)
11/10/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
25/10/2013 Reply
30/10/2013 Amended written submisssions (Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) seeking leave to intervene)
27/11/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/02/2014 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Zirilli v. The Queen
Case No.
M1/2013
Related matter
M3/2013 – Barbaro v. The Queen
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
30/11/2012 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Maxwell P, Harper JA and T Forrest JA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Sentencing – Crown submission on sentencing range – Appellants convicted of conspiracy to traffic in commercial quantity of controlled drug and sentenced to 26 years imprisonment – Trial judge refused to hear prosecution’s submission on appropriate sentencing range and imposed sentences higher than the range the prosecutor would have proposed – Whether trial judge erred in refusing to hear the prosecution’s submission on sentencing range – Whether refusal to hear prosecutions’ submission on sentencing range constitutes a denial of procedural fairness – Whether prosecution’s submission on sentencing range was a relevant consideration in sentencing – Whether R v MacNeil-Brown (2008) 20 VR 677 is good law.
Documents
02/01/2013 Application for special leave to appeal
16/08/2013 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
02/10/2013 Written submissions (Applicant)
02/10/2013 Chronology
23/10/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
30/10/2013 Written submissions (Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) seeking leave to intervene)
06/11/2013 Reply
27/11/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/02/2014 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Kline v. Official Secretary to the Governor General and Anor
Case No.
B47/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
19/12/2012 Federal Court of Australia (Keane CJ, Besanko and Robertson JJ)
Catchwords
Administrative law – Freedom of Information – Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Request for access to documents – Documents concerning appointments to the Order of Australia – Under s 6A documents that relate to matters of an administrative nature are exempt from the Act – Whether documents that relate to powers and functions of Governor General in administering the Order of Australia relate to matters of an administrative nature – Meaning of “administrative nature”.
Words and phrases – “of an administrative nature” – “substantive power or function”.
Documents
16/08/2013 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
29/08/2013 Notice of appeal
23/09/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
23/09/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
08/10/2013 Written submissions (First Respondent)
25/10/2013 Reply
30/10/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/12/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)