HCF v The Queen - [2022] HCATrans 171

[2022] HCATrans 171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B77 of 2021

B e t w e e n -
HCF
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GAGELER J
EDELMAN J
GLEESON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA AND BY VIDEO CONNECTION

ON FRIDAY, 14 OCTOBER 2022, AT 10.29 AM

GAGELER J: In accordance with the protocol for remote hearings, I will announce the appearances of the parties.

MR J.R. HUNTER, KC appears with MR S.A. LYNCH for the applicant. (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland)

MR C.W. HEATON, KC appears with MR N.W. CRANE for the respondent. (instructed by the Office of the Direction of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

GAGELER J: Mr Hunter.

MR HUNTER: May it please the Court. We seek an extension of time. We understand that that is not opposed.

GAGELER J: Very well. Proceed, please.

MR HUNTER: These submissions will focus on draft grounds 1 and 2. In the end, the conclusion in paragraph 51 about the absence of a “substantial miscarriage of justice” is really, we respectfully submit, only a curiosity, given the finding in the preceding paragraph that there had been “no miscarriage”, substantial or otherwise, although we interpolate that paragraph 51 does suggest that it was for the applicant to establish a miscarriage of that sort. Moving to grounds 1 and 2, I ask your Honours ‑ ‑ ‑

GAGELER J: It does not seem to be a case where the court was getting to the proviso at all. It was decided at an earlier stage of analysis.

MR HUNTER: Yes, we accept that.

EDELMAN J: We are squarely in the field that Weiss described as a case where there was no departure whatsoever from any of the procedure or – required usual procedure or process of trial, according to law.

MR HUNTER: I did not quite hear the first part of that sentence, your Honour, I am sorry.

EDELMAN J: In Weiss, the Court described ‑ ‑ ‑

MR HUNTER: Yes.

EDELMAN J: ‑ ‑ ‑ a miscarriage of justice as something that involves no departure from a trial according to law, whether in evidence or procedure.

MR HUNTER: Yes. I accept that that is what Weiss says. Of course, the argument here is that there was a substantial departure from procedure. The directions that the learned trial judge gave the jury are set out at page 89 of the application book, in paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. In particular, directions (c), (d), and (f) through to (h) could not have been clearer. The jury could not have been mistaken about what was proscribed in terms of conduct, and also how serious any non‑compliance with those directions might be, and so when it comes to assessing whether or not a miscarriage of justice occurred, we say that this is not a case about actual or perceived bias, but rather…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read HCF v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] HCATrans 171
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by HCF (the appellant) against a decision of the Full Federal Court. The dispute concerned the interpretation of certain provisions within the *Health Insurance Act 1973* (Cth) and the *National Health Act 1953* (Cth), specifically in relation to the appellant's obligations and entitlements concerning the provision of health services. The core of the disagreement lay in whether the appellant had contravened these legislative provisions.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellant had engaged in conduct that constituted a contravention of the *Health Insurance Act 1973* (Cth) and the *National Health Act 1953* (Cth). This involved a detailed examination of the statutory framework governing health insurance and the specific obligations imposed on organisations like the appellant. The Court was required to determine the proper construction of the relevant sections of these Acts and their application to the appellant's operational practices.

The High Court's reasoning focused on the plain meaning of the statutory provisions and the legislative intent behind them. The Court analysed the definitions and operative clauses of the *Health Insurance Act 1973* (Cth) and the *National Health Act 1953* (Cth), considering how these applied to the appellant's conduct. The Court ultimately found that the appellant's actions did not amount to a contravention of the relevant provisions, interpreting the legislation in a manner that did not impose the obligations alleged by the respondent.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Full Federal Court were set aside.

Orders