Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 26 April 2012 44 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2012] HCAB 04 (26 April 2012)

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: Cases Handed Down
2: Cases Reserved
3: Original Jurisdiction
4: Special Leave Granted
5: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
6: Special Leave Refused

Summary of New Entries

1: Cases Handed Down

Case	Title
Aytugrul v The Queen	Criminal Law
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited	Intellectual Property

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
J T International SA v Commonwealth of Australia; British American Tobacco Australasia Limited & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia	Constitutional Law
Clodumar v Nauru Lands Committee	Property Law

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
There are no new matters ready for hearing in the original jurisdiction of the High Court since High Court Bulletin 3 [2012] HCAB 03.

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
No new matters were granted special leave since High Court Bulletin 3 [2012] HCAB 03.

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the April 2012 sittings.

Criminal Law

Aytugrul v The Queen

S315/2011: [2012] HCA 15.

Judgment delivered: 18 April 2012.

Coram: French CJ, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Evidence – Admissibility of evidence about DNA analysis – Appellant convicted of murder – Expert gave evidence at trial about mitochondrial DNA testing of hair found on deceased's thumbnail – Expert's statistical evidence given in form of frequency ratio and exclusion percentage – Whether evidence of exclusion percentage relevant given evidence of frequency ratio – Whether probative value of evidence of exclusion percentage outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice to appellant – Whether evidence of exclusion percentage misleading or confusing.
Evidence – Judicial notice – Argument for general rule that evidence of exclusion percentage is always inadmissible due to danger of unfair prejudice – Facts underpinning adoption of general rule not proved – Whether judicial notice can be taken of psychological research said to support adoption of general rule.
Words and phrases – "evidence", "exclusion percentage", "frequency ratio", "judicial notice", "misleading or confusing", "unfair prejudice".

Appealed from NSW SC (CCA): (2010) 205 A Crim R 157; [2010] NSWCCA 272.

Intellectual Property

Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Ors v iiNet Limited

S288/2011: [2012] HCA 16.

Judgment delivered: 20 April 2012.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ.

Catchwords:

Intellectual property – Copyright – Infringement – Authorisation – Appellants owners and exclusive licensees of copyright in commercially released films and television programs ("appellants' films") – Respondent internet service provider supplied internet services under agreement requiring that services not be used to infringe others' rights or for illegal purposes – Users of respondent's internet services infringed copyright in appellants' films by making appellants' films available online using BitTorrent peer-to-peer file…

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: [2012] HCAB 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aytugrul v The Queen [2012] HCA 15 concerned the admissibility of evidence of mitochondrial DNA testing. The Court held that the evidence of exclusion percentage was relevant and probative and was not misleading or confusing. Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Ors v iiNet Limited [2012] HCA 16 concerned whether the internet service provider authorised copyright infringement by users of its services. The Court held that there was no authorisation as the users acted independently of the respondent. The Court considered the meaning of the word "authorise" and held that it required an intention to assist or enable the infringement.

Orders