Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 18 November 2022 42 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2022] HCAB 9 (18 November 2022)

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
Awad v The Queen; Tambakakis v The Queen	Criminal Practice

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Anor	Administrative Law
Attorney-General (Cth) v Huynh & Ors	Constitutional Law
Unions NSW & Ors v State of New South Wales	Constitutional Law
Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. & Anor	Private International Law

4: Original Jurisdiction

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore	Civil Procedure
Zurich Insurance PLC & Anor v Koper & Anor	Civil Procedure
Lang v The Queen	Criminal Law
The King v Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd formerly known as Sinclair Knight Merz	Criminal Law
AZC20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor	Immigration
Qantas Airways Limited & Anor v Transport Workers Union of Australia	Industrial Law

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 November 2022 sittings.

Criminal Practice

Awad v The Queen; Tambakakis v The Queen

M44/2022; M45/2022: [2022] HCA 36

Judgment: 9 November 2022

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ

Catchwords:

Criminal Practice – Appeal – Error or irregularity in trial – Directions to jury – Where credibility of one accused giving evidence central to both trials – Where trial judge directed jury that innocent person can do nothing more than give evidence – Where trial judge directed jury that guilty person may give evidence in hope or belief they will more likely be believed – Where directions prohibited by s 44J of Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) – Whether misdirection constituted substantial miscarriage of justice.
Words and phrases – "charge", "conviction was inevitable", "credibility", "deflect the jury from its fundamental task", "direction", "essential to a fair trial", "fundamental error", "jury", "misdirection", "motivation to give evidence", "natural limitations", "onus of proof", "presumption of innocence", "prohibited direction", "serious departure from the prescribed processes for trial", "substantial miscarriage of justice".
Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 276(1)(b).
Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic), ss 44J, 44K.

Appealed from VSC (CA): [2021] VSCA 285; (2021) 291 A Crim R 303

Held: Appeal allowed.

Return to Top

3: Cases Reserved

The following cases have been reserved or part heard by the High Court of Australia.

Administrative…

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: [2022] HCAB 9
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Awad v The Queen; Tambakakis v The Queen was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue in the case was whether the misdirections given to the jury by the trial judge constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Court held that the misdirections did amount to a substantial miscarriage of justice and allowed the appeals. The Court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were prohibited by statute and constituted a fundamental error that deprived the appellants of a fair trial. This case highlights the importance of proper jury directions in criminal trials and the potential consequences of misdirections on the outcome of a case.

In the case of Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Anor, the High Court of Australia reserved judgment. The central issue in the case was whether the failure to comply with a statutory requirement in the sentencing process constituted a jurisdictional error. The Court has not yet delivered its judgment in this case, and it remains to be seen how the Court will address this issue. This case highlights the importance of statutory requirements in the sentencing process and the potential consequences of failing to comply with them.

Orders