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
The King v Rohan (a pseudonym)	Criminal Law
Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs	Immigration
Harvey v Minister for Primary Industry and Resources	Native Title
Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Carmichael Rail Network Trust v BBC Chartering Carriers GmbH & Co KG & Anor	Shipping and Navigation

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Cessnock City Council (ABN 60 919 148 928) v 123 259 932 Pty Ltd (ACN 123 259 932)	Contract
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kola	Criminal Law
LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor	Immigration
Miller v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor	Immigration
Productivity Partners Pty Ltd (trading as Captain Cook College) (ACN 085 570 547) & Anor v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission & Anor	Trade Practices
Wills v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission & Ors	Trade Practices

4: Original Jurisdiction

5: Section 40 Removal

Case	Title
Attorney-General of the Commonwealth v ASF17 & Anor	Constitutional Law
Commonwealth of Australia v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors; His Honour Judge Salvatore Paul Vasta v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors	Constitutional Law
State of Queensland v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors	Torts

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
RC v The Salvation Army (Western Australia) Property Trust	Civil Procedure
Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith	Criminal Practice
Naaman v Jaken Properties Australia Pty Limited ACN 123 423 432 & Ors	Equity
Stuart & Ors v State of South Australia & Ors	Native Title
Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd ACN 004 116 223	Trade Practices

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 December 2023 sittings.

Criminal Law

The King v Rohan (a pseudonym)

M33/2023: [2024] HCA 3

Judgment delivered: 14 February 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Gleeson and Jagot JJ

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Criminal liability – Statutory complicity – Where s 324(1) of Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) provided, "if an offence ... is committed, a person who is involved in the commission of the offence is taken to have committed the offence" – Where s 323(1)(c) of Crimes Act provided person is "involved in the commission of an offence" if person "enters into an agreement, arrangement or understanding…

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.

Continue reading High Court Bulletin

Details

AGLC: High Court Bulletin [2024] HCAB 1
Case: [2024] HCAB 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The King v Rohan (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 3 is a criminal case involving the appellant who was convicted of supplying a drug of dependence to a child and sexual penetration of a child under 12 years of age. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge should have directed the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the parties to the agreement knew the ages of the complainants or that the complainants were under the specified age. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the prosecution was required to prove that the accused knew, at the time of entering the agreement, the essential facts that made the conduct an offence, where knowledge or belief was not an element of the offence itself. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused knew or believed that the complainants were under the age of 18 years for the supply offence and under 12 years for the sexual penetration offence. The court also held that the fault element in Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473 was applicable to s 323(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), which provided that a person was involved in the commission of an offence if they entered into an agreement, arrangement, or understanding with another person to commit the offence.

Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2 is an immigration case involving the applicant who applied for a visa but was refused by the delegate of the Minister. The applicant argued that the delegate failed to comply with Direction No 90, which required the decision-maker to take into account certain considerations, including the best interests of minor children affected by the decision. The High Court dismissed the application, finding that the delegate had not failed to comply with para 8.3(1) of Direction 90 or failed to inquire about the status of the minor child in circumstances where it was legally unreasonable not to do so. The court also held that para 8.2 of Direction 90 permitted the delegate to give weight to family violence considerations in circumstances where the delegate had given weight to considerations under other paragraphs, and that para 8.2 was not invalid. The court further held that the delegate had not misapplied para 8.4 of Direction 90.

Orders