Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 13 June 2024 50 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

Produced by the Legal Research Officer,
High Court of Australia Library

[2024] HCAB 5 (13 June 2024)

A record of recent High Court of Australia cases: decided, reserved for judgment, awaiting hearing in the Court’s original jurisdiction, granted special leave to appeal, refused special leave to appeal and not proceeding or vacated

1: Summary of New Entries
2: Cases Handed Down
3: Cases Reserved
4: Original Jurisdiction
5: Section 40 Removal
6: Special Leave Granted
7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
8: Special Leave Refused

1: Summary of New Entries

2: Cases Handed Down

Case	Title
Dayney v The King	Criminal Law
The King v Hatahet	Criminal Law (Cth)
Godolphin Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue	Land Tax
Greylag Goose Leasing 1410 Designated Activity Company v P.T. Garuda Indonesia Ltd	Private International Law

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Morgan & Ors v McMillan Investment Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor	Bankruptcy
Steven Moore (a pseudonym) v The King	Evidence
Automotive Invest Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation	Taxation

4: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
MJZP v DG Security	Constitutional Law

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
SkyCity Adelaide Pty Ltd v Treasurer of South Australia & Anor	Statutes

7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

8: Special Leave Refused

2: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the June 2024 sittings.

Criminal Law

Dayney v The King

B69/2023: [2024] HCA 22

Judgment delivered: 12 June 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Self-defence against provoked assault – Where appellant convicted of murder – Where s 272(1) of Criminal Code (Qld) affords defence of self-defence against provoked assault – Where s 272(2) identifies cases to which defence does not apply – Where s 272(2) contains three clauses – Where third clause of s 272(2) states that accused will not obtain protection of s 272(1) unless they declined further conflict and quitted it or retreated from it as far as practicable before using force in self-defence – Whether condition in third clause of s 272(2) is an independent condition or modifies effect of first two clauses of s 272(2) – Whether trial judge erred in directing jury that appellant must satisfy retreat condition for defence of self-defence against provoked assault.
Words and phrases – "death or grievous bodily harm", "murder", "necessity", "nor, in either case", "reasonably necessary", "self-defence", "self-defence against provoked assault".
Criminal Code (Qld), s 272.

Appealed from QLDSC (CA): [2023] QCA 62; (2023) 13 QR 650

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Return to Top

Criminal Law (Cth)

The King v Hatahet

S37/2024: [2024] HCA 23

Judgment delivered: 12 June 2024

Coram: Gordon A-CJ, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Criminal law (Cth) – Sentence – Where respondent convicted under s 6 of Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 (Cth) – Where s 19ALB of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) provides Attorney-General…

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 High Court Bulletin 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: [2024] HCAB 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dayney v The King, the High Court considered the interpretation and application of section 272 of the Criminal Code (Qld), which addresses self-defence against provoked assault. The central issue was whether the third clause of s 272(2) is an independent condition or modifies the effect of the first two clauses of s 272(2). Specifically, the Court examined whether the appellant was required to satisfy the "retreat condition" before the defence of self-defence against provoked assault could apply. The Court held that the retreat condition in the third clause of s 272(2) is not an independent condition but modifies the effect of the first two clauses. The Court concluded that the trial judge did not err in directing the jury that the appellant must satisfy the retreat condition for the defence of self-defence against provoked assault. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

In The King v Hatahet, the High Court addressed the sentencing of a respondent convicted under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 (Cth). The key issue was whether the sentencing judge should have considered the likelihood of parole release under section 19ALB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The Court found that the sentencing judge should have considered the application of section 19ALB when sentencing the respondent. The expectation that parole would be refused due to the application of section 19ALB warranted the imposition of a lesser sentence. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.

In Godolphin Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue, the High Court considered the statutory construction of the Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW). The issue was whether the requirement of "dominant use" of land applied to both the "maintenance of animals" and the "purpose of sale" in section 10AA(3)(b) of the Act. The Court held that the requirement of "dominant use" applied to both the maintenance of animals and the purpose of sale. The Court concluded that the "dominant" phrase qualified the composite "use-for-a-purpose" phrase. Thus, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

In Greylag Goose Leasing 1410 Designated Activity Company v P.T. Garuda Indonesia Ltd, the High Court examined the immunity of a foreign State and its instrumentalities from jurisdiction under the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth). The central issue was whether the exception from immunity in section 14(3)(a) read with section 22 of the Act applied to proceedings for the winding up of a body corporate that is a separate entity of a foreign State. The Court held that the exception from immunity applied to such proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

In summary, the High Court provided clarity on the application of self-defence provisions, the consideration of parole in sentencing, statutory interpretation in land tax, and the immunity of foreign States and their instrumentalities in proceedings for winding up a body corporate. The outcomes in these cases reflect the Court's role in resolving significant legal issues and ensuring the correct application of the law.

Orders