Cases
Handlen v. The Queen
Paddison v. The Queen
Case No.
B26/2011; B27/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/12/2010 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal)
Catchwords
Constitutional law — Trial by jury — Section 668E(1A) of Criminal Code (Q) ("proviso") allows court to dismiss appeal where points raised by appellant might be decided in appellant's favour if court considers no substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred — Applicants found guilty by jury of drug offences in contravention of Criminal Code (Cth) ("Code") — Court of Appeal found case put to jury "in terms alien to the forms of criminal responsibility" recognised by Code and applicants only criminally responsible as aiders under s 11.2 of Code — Court of Appeal applied proviso — Whether failure to put case against applicants to jury on correct basis of criminal liability a substantial miscarriage of justice — Whether s 80 of Commonwealth Constitution precluded application of proviso.
Criminal law — Appeal and new trial — Miscarriage of justice —Whether failure to put case against applicants to jury on correct basis of criminal liability a substantial miscarriage of justice — Whether s 80 of Commonwealth Constitution precluded application of proviso.
Words and phrases — "substantial miscarriage of justice".
Documents
13/05/2011 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by v/link to Brisbane)
27/05/2011 Notice of appeal
27/05/2011 Notice of constitutional matter (Appellant)
15/06/2011 Written submissions (Paddision)
15/06/2011 Chronology (Paddison)
16/06/2011 Written submissions (Handlen)
16/06/2011 Chronology (Handlen)
01/07/2011 Written submissions (Handlen - Respondent)
01/07/2011 Written submissions (Paddison - Respondent)
25/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
25/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for Victoria intervening)
25/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of Queensland intervening)
26/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for New South Wales intervening)
03/08/2011 Reply (Joint for Handlen and Paddison)
06/09/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
08/12/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Wotton v. State of Queensland and Anor
Case No.
S314/2010
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law — Restrictions on State legislation — Rights and freedoms implied in Commonwealth Constitution — Freedom of political communication — Plaintiff convicted of offence of rioting causing destruction and sentenced to imprisonment — Plaintiff granted parole subject to conditions that, inter alia: he attend no public meetings on Palm Island without prior approval of his corrective services officer; he be prohibited from speaking to and having any interaction with the media; and he receive no direct or indirect payment from the media ("Conditions") — Plaintiff sought approval to attend public meeting on Palm Island concerning youth crime and juvenile justice — Plaintiff's request denied by parole officer of second defendant, the Central and Northern Queensland Regional Parole Board — Whether s 132 of Corrective Services Act 2006 (Q) ("Act"), which prohibits interviewing and photographing of prisoners including persons on parole, contrary to Commonwealth Constitution by impermissibly burdening implied freedom of political communication — Whether Conditions contrary to Commonwealth Constitution by impermissibly burdening implied freedom of political communication — Whether s 200(2) of Act invalid to the extent it authorises imposition of Conditions. Documents.
Documents:
22/12/2010 Writ of summons
23/03/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
06/05/2011 Case stated
16/05/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
07/07/2011 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
07/07/2011 Chronology
21/07/2011 Written submissions (Defendants)
25/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
25/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
25/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Statue of Victoria intervening)
29/07/2011 Reply
02/08/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
02/08/2011 Corrected outline of submissions (Plaintiff)
03/08/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
29/02/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Williams v. Commonwealth of Australia and Ors
Case No.
S307/2010
Case Information
Catchwords
Plaintiff contends that the payment or disbursement by the Commonwealth of monies from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purposes of the National School Chaplaincy Program, and therefore the Darling Heights Funding Agreement, was not supported by an appropriation made by law, as required by s.83 of the Constitution.
Documents
21/12/2010 Writ of summons
21/12/2010 Notice of constitutional matter
27/01/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
25/03/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
06/05/2011 Draft case stated
09/05/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video link to Sydney & Melbourne)
18/05/2011 Special case
28/06/2011 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
28/06/2011 Chronology
01/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for Western Australia intervening)
11/07/2011 Written submissions (First to Third Defendants)
12/07/2011 Written submissions (Fourth Defendant)
19/07/2011 Reply
19/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
20/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
20/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Queensland intervening)
20/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
25/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania intervening)
26/07/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video-link to Adelaide and Perth)
26/07/2011 Amended written submissions (Fourth Defendant)
27/07/2011 First to Third Defendants' reply to interveners
29/07/2011 Further amended written submissions (Plaintiff)
29/07/2011 Amended written submissions (First to Third Defendants)
29/07/2011 Amended written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
29/07/2011 Plaintiff's reply to interveners
29/07/2011 Amended written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
29/07/2011 Written submissions (Churches Commission on Education - seeking leave to intervene)
09/08/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
10/08/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
11/08/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
19/08/2011 Further written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania intervening)
19/08/2011 Further written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
01/09/2011 Response to intervener's submissions (First to Third Defendants)
12/09/2011 Supplementary written submissions (Plaintiff)
20/06/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Green v. The Queen
Case No.
S146/2011
Related matter
S143/2011 – Quinn v. The Queen
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/12/2010 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Allsop P, McClellan CJatCL, Hulme J, Latham J, McCallum J)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Sentencing — Applicants pleaded guilty to cultivation of large commercial quantity of cannabis — Crown appealed against inadequacy of applicants' sentences — Where no appeal instituted against sentence of another participant who pleaded guilty to taking part in supply of commercial quantity of cannabis — Where NSW Court of Criminal Appeal increased applicants' sentences — Whether sentence which at first instance achieves parity with sentence imposed on co-offender can be regarded as manifestly inadequate — Whether open to intermediate appellate court to increase sentence when increase will engender sentencing disparity — Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s23(2)(a); Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D; Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), Div 1A.
Documents
05/04/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
20/04/2011 Notice of appeal
13/05/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
13/05/2011 Chronology
03/06/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
14/06/2011 Reply
24/06/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
03/08/2011 Pronouncement of Orders (Reasons to be published later)
06/12/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Quinn v. The Queen
Case No.
S143/2011
Related matter
S146/2011 – Green v. The Queen
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/12/2010 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Allsop P, McClellan CJatCL, Hulme J, Latham J, McCallum J)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Sentencing — Applicants pleaded guilty to cultivation of large commercial quantity of cannabis — Crown appealed against inadequacy of applicants' sentences — Where no appeal instituted against sentence of another participant who pleaded guilty to taking part in supply of commercial quantity of cannabis — Where NSW Court of Criminal Appeal increased applicants' sentences — Whether sentence which at first instance achieves parity with sentence imposed on co-offender can be regarded as manifestly inadequate — Whether open to intermediate appellate court to increase sentence when increase will engender sentencing disparity — Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s23(2)(a); Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D; Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), Div 1A.
Documents
08/04/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
19/04/2011 Notice of appeal
13/05/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
13/05/2011 Chronology
03/06/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
14/06/2011 Reply
24/06/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
03/08/2011 Pronouncement of Orders (Reasons to be published later)
06/12/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)