Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 19 December 2011 59 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2011] HCAB 10 (19 December 2011)

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
Moti v The Queen	Abuse of Process
Shahi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship	Citizenship and Migration
Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Nicholls	Courts and Judges
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen	Criminal Law
Handlen v The Queen; Paddison v The Queen	Criminal Law
Amaca Pty Limited (Under NSW Administered Winding Up) v Booth; Amaba Pty Limited (Under NSW Administered Winding Up) v Booth	Evidence
Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart	Evidence

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Public Service Association of South Australia Incorporated v Industrial Relations Commission of South Australia & Anor	Administrative Law
Aytugrul v The Queen	Criminal Law
Bui v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)	Criminal Law
King v The Queen	Criminal Law
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Ors v iiNet Limited	Intellectual Property

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
Plaintiff S51/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor	Citizenship and Migration
Crump v State of New South Wales	Constitutional Law

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Kizon v The Queen; Mansfield v The Queen	Corporations Law
State of New South Wales v Williamson	Costs
Certain Lloyds Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IHOOAAQS v Cross; Certain Lloyds Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IHOOAAQS v Thelander; Certain Lloyds Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IHOOAAQS v Thelander	Costs
The Hon Brendan O'Connor, Commonwealth Minister for Home Affairs v Zentai	Extradition
Newcrest Mining Limited v Thornton	Statutes
Barclay v Penberthy	Torts

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the November-December 2011 sittings.

Abuse of Process

Moti v The Queen

B19/2011: [2011] HCA 50.

Judgment delivered: 7 December 2011.

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

Catchwords:

Abuse of process — Criminal proceedings — Appellant was citizen of Australia suspected of child sex offences against Australian law committed overseas — Appellant deported from Solomon Islands to Australia by Solomon Islands Government contrary to Solomon Islands law — Australian Government representatives in Solomon Islands aware, and informed superiors in Canberra, of illegality — Australian Government issued travel document for appellant and visas to Solomon Islands officials, which facilitated deportation — Appellant charged and prosecuted on arrival in Australia — Whether circumstances of appellant's removal from Solomon Islands required permanent stay of his prosecution.
Abuse of process — Criminal proceedings — Complainant and certain family members made statements about appellant's conduct to Australian Federal Police ("AFP") — Complainant and family later refused to participate in prosecution as…

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: [2011] HCAB 10
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Moti was deported from the Solomon Islands to Australia contrary to Solomon Islands law. He was charged with child sex offences under Australian law for acts committed in the Solomon Islands. He applied for a permanent stay of his prosecution. His application was refused. The ground for appeal was that the circumstances of his removal from the Solomon Islands required a permanent stay of his prosecution. The Full Court held that the appellant's prosecution was not stayed on the ground that the circumstances of his removal from the Solomon Islands required a permanent stay of his prosecution. The appeal was dismissed. The High Court allowed the appeal. The Court held that the appellant's prosecution was required to be permanently stayed. The illegality of the actions of the Solomon Islands Government in removing the appellant to Australia was a material consideration in the appellant's favour, which weighed heavily against the appellant's prosecution in Australia. The illegality of the actions of the Australian Government in facilitating the appellant's removal to Australia was a material consideration in the appellant's favour, which weighed heavily against the appellant's prosecution in Australia. The Court held that the appellant's prosecution was required to be permanently stayed on the ground of abuse of process. The Court found that the payments to the witnesses by the Australian Federal Police exceeded their guidelines but did not amount to unlawful conduct. The Court held that the payments to the witnesses did not require a permanent stay of the appellant's prosecution.

Orders