Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 12 November 2021 41 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2021] HCAB 9 (12 November 2021)

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
Park v The Queen	Criminal Law
The Queen v Rolfe	Criminal Law
Hofer v The Queen	Criminal Practice
Hamilton (a pseudonym) v The Queen	Criminal Practice
Addy v Commissioner of Taxation	Income Tax
Sunland Group Limited v Gold Coast City Council	Local Government

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Wells Fargo Trust Company, National Association (As Owner Trustee) & Anor v VB Leaseco Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) & Ors	Aviation
Orreal v The Queen	Criminal Law
NSW Commissioner of Police v Cottle & Anor	Industrial Law
Commissioner of Taxation v Carter & Ors	Taxation
Tapp v Australian Bushmen’s Campdraft & Rodeo Association Limited	Torts

4: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
Delil Alexander (by his litigation guardian Berivan Alexander) v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor	Constitutional Law

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd as Trustee for The Holly Superannuation Fund & Ors	Superannuation

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 2021 sittings.

Criminal Law

Park v The Queen

S61/2021: [2021] HCA 37

Judgment delivered: 10 November 2021

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Edelman and Gleeson JJ

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Sentence – Plea of guilty – Where appellant sentenced in District Court of New South Wales for multiple offences including taking a conveyance without consent of owner contrary to s 154A(1)(a) of Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ("offence") – Where maximum penalty for offence five years' imprisonment – Where offence dealt with as a "related offence" under s 165 of Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) – Where sentencing court subject to jurisdictional limit of two years' imprisonment for offence – Where s 22(1) of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) provided sentencing court may impose lesser penalty than it would otherwise have imposed but for plea of guilty – Where sentencing judge awarded 25% discount for guilty plea for offence – Where indicative sentence of two years and eight months' imprisonment exceeded jurisdictional limit – Whether sentence that court "would otherwise have imposed" can exceed jurisdictional limit.
Words and phrases – "aggregate sentence", "appropriate sentence", "discount to the sentence", "guilty plea", "indicative sentence", "jurisdictional limit", "lesser penalty than it would otherwise have imposed", "maximum penalty", "plea of guilty", "sentence in excess of the jurisdictional limit".
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

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: [2021] HCAB 9
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia recently handed down several decisions in criminal law, criminal practice, income tax, and local government cases. In Park v The Queen, the court held that the sentencing judge may not impose a sentence that exceeds the jurisdictional limit for the offence, even if the sentence is discounted for a guilty plea. In The Queen v Rolfe, the court held that the Police Administration Act 1978 (NT) provided the respondent with a defence to the criminal charges against him. In Hamilton (a pseudonym) v The Queen, the court held that the failure of the trial judge to give an anti-tendency direction did not result in a miscarriage of justice. In Hofer v The Queen, the court held that the proviso that no substantial miscarriage of justice actually occurred applied because the court was satisfied that there was no real chance that the appellant’s guilt had been decided on the basis of inadmissible and prejudicial evidence. In Addy v Commissioner of Taxation, the court held that the new tax rate imposed on working holiday visa holders was more burdensome than the tax rate imposed on Australian residents for tax purposes and therefore contravened the non-discrimination clause in the United Kingdom convention. In Sunland Group Limited v Gold Coast City Council, the court held that the conditions in the preliminary approval imposed a liability to pay infrastructure contributions.

In other cases, the High Court of Australia reserved several cases for hearing, granted special leave to appeal in some cases, and refused special leave to appeal in other cases. For example, in Wells Fargo Trust Company, National Association (As Owner Trustee) v VB Leaseco Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) & Ors, the court reserved the case for hearing to determine whether the respondents failed to “give possession” of the aircraft engines. In Citta Hobart Pty Ltd & Anor v Cawthorn, the court granted special leave to appeal to determine whether the Full Court applied the correct test as to the jurisdiction of the State Tribunal. In Kozarov v State of Victoria, the court granted special leave to appeal to determine whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the injury caused by the return to work after February 2012. In contrast, in WKMZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor, the court refused special leave to appeal.

Overall, the High Court of Australia's recent decisions cover a range of legal issues, from sentencing and defences to tax and local government. The court's reasoning and outcome in each case demonstrate its commitment to ensuring justice is served in a fair and equitable manner.

Orders