Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 20 February 2012 58 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2012] HCAB 01 (20 February 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
Bui v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)	Criminal Law
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Ors v iiNet Limited	High Court of Australia

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Plaintiff S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor; Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor; Plaintiff S49/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor; Plaintiff S51/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor	Citizenship and Migration
ALH Group Holdings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue	Contracts
Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The Queen	Criminal Law
Harbour Radio Pty Limited v Trad (part heard)	Defamation
Australian Education Union v General Manager of Fair work Australia & Ors	Industrial Law
The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Bargwanna & Bargwanna (as trustees of the Kalos Metron Charitable Trust)	Taxation and Duties

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
There are no new matters ready for hearing in the original jurisdiction of the High Court.

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Commonwealth of Australia v Kutlu & Ors; Commonwealth of Australia v Clarke & Ors; Commonwealth of Australia v Lee & Ors; Commonwealth Minister of State for Health v Condoleon & Ors	Administrative Law
Beck v Weinstock & Ors	Corporations Law
Burns v The Queen	Criminal Law
Patel v The Queen	Criminal Law
Commissioner of Taxation v Qantas Airways Ltd	Taxation

1: Cases Handed Down

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

Criminal Law

Bui v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

M127/2011: [2012] HCA 1.

Judgment delivered: 9 February 2012.

Catchwords:

Criminal law — Appeal — Appeal against sentence — Prosecution appeal — Double jeopardy — Appellant pleaded guilty to importation of a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug contrary to s 307.2(1) of Criminal Code (Cth) — Appellant sentenced to three years' imprisonment to be released forthwith upon giving security to comply with a condition that appellant be of good behaviour for three years — Respondent appealed against sentence — Sections 289(2) and 290(3) of Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) ("Victorian provisions") provided that double jeopardy not to be taken into account in allowing appeal against sentence or imposing sentence — Whether ss 68(1) or 79(1) of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ("Judiciary Act") rendered Victorian provisions applicable to prosecution appeal against sentence instituted by respondent — Whether a "common law principle against double jeopardy" picked up by s…

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 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bui v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) concerned an appeal against a sentence in a criminal case. The appellant had pleaded guilty to a charge of importing a border-controlled drug and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. The respondent appealed against the sentence, and the court considered whether the appeal was limited by the principle of double jeopardy. The court also considered whether the principle of double jeopardy applied to the prosecution's appeal against sentence. The court had to decide whether certain Victorian provisions and the principle of double jeopardy applied to the prosecution's appeal against sentence.

Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Ors v iiNet Limited involved an application by the appellants for leave to intervene in the proceedings. The application was made to the High Court on appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The court had to determine whether the appellants were sufficiently affected by the proceedings to warrant their intervention.

The outcome of the cases was that in Bui v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth), the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the principle of double jeopardy did not limit the prosecution's appeal against sentence. The court also held that the Victorian provisions did not apply to the prosecution's appeal against sentence.

In Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Ors v iiNet Limited, the High Court dismissed the application for leave to intervene. The court held that the appellants were not sufficiently affected by the proceedings to warrant their intervention.

The court's reasoning in both cases was based on a careful analysis of the relevant legal principles and statutes. The court considered the implications of the principle of double jeopardy and the applicability of the Victorian provisions to the prosecution's appeal against sentence in Bui v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth). In Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Ors v iiNet Limited, the court considered the interests of the parties and the impact of the proceedings on the appellants to determine whether they were sufficiently affected to warrant their intervention.

Orders