Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 18 April 2011 49 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2011] HCAB 03 (18 April 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
Lacey v Attorney-General of Queensland	Criminal Law
Stubley v Western Australia	Criminal Law
In the matter of an application by Andrew Green for leave to issue a proceeding	High Court and Federal Court
In the matter of an application by Graham Freemantle for leave to issue a proceeding	High Court and Federal Court
Edwards v Santos Limited	Practice and Procedure
Miller v Miller	Torts

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Haskins v The Commonwealth of Australia	Constitutional Law
Nicholas v The Commonwealth of Australia & Anor	Constitutional Law
Roy Morgan Research Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation & Anor	Constitutional Law
Boland v Dillon; Cush v Dillon	Defamation
Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Limited v Mine Subsidence Board	Energy and Resources
Dasreef Pty Limited v Hawchar	Evidence
Insight Vacations Pty Ltd t/as Insight Vacations v Young	Trade and Commerce

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
There are no new cases ready for hearing in the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia since [2011] HCAB 02.

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Queanbeyan City Council v ACTEW Corporation Ltd & Anor	Constitutional Law
Moti v The Queen	Criminal Law
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen	Criminal Law
AB v State of Western Australia; AH v State of Western Australia	Statutes

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the March—April 2011 sittings.

Administrative Law

See High Court and Federal Court: In the matter of an application by Andrew Green for leave to issue a proceeding

Constitutional Law

See High Court and Federal Court: In the matter of an application by Andrew Green for leave to issue a proceeding

Criminal Law

Lacey v Attorney-General of Queensland

B40/2010: [2011] HCA 10.

Judgment delivered: 7 April 2011.

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

Catchwords:

Criminal law — Appeal — Appeal against sentence — Appeal by Crown — Where s 669A(1) of Criminal Code (Q) permitted appeal by Attorney-General against sentence and provided that appellate court "may in its unfettered discretion vary the sentence and impose such sentence as to the Court seems proper" — Where appellate court increased sentence without identifying any error by sentencing judge — Whether Crown must demonstrate error by sentencing judge before discretion to vary sentence enlivened.
Words and phrases — "appeal", "unfettered discretion".

Appealed from Qld SC (CA): (2009) 197 A Crim R 399; [2009] QCA 274.

Stubley v Western…

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 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court handed down judgments in six cases during the March—April 2011 sittings. In Lacey v Attorney-General of Queensland, the Court considered whether the Crown must demonstrate error by the sentencing judge before the Court may exercise its discretion to vary the sentence. The Court held that the Crown was not required to demonstrate error by the sentencing judge before the Court could exercise its discretion to vary the sentence. In Stubley v Western Australia, the Court considered whether evidence of uncharged acts had significant probative value. The Court held that the evidence of uncharged acts did not have significant probative value. In the matter of an application by Andrew Green for leave to issue a proceeding, the Court considered whether the applicant's electoral petition sufficiently set out the facts relied upon to invalidate the election. The Court held that the petition did not sufficiently set out the facts relied upon to invalidate the election. In Edwards v Santos Limited, the Court considered whether the plaintiffs had sufficient interest to bring proceedings seeking declarations that a grant of lease to the first and third defendants would not be valid. The Court held that the plaintiffs had sufficient interest to bring proceedings. In Miller v Miller, the Court considered whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. The Court held that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. Finally, in the matter of an application by Graham Freemantle for leave to issue a proceeding, the Court considered whether the application raised a real question to be determined. The Court held that the application did not raise a real question to be determined.

Orders