Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 17 June 2020 33 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2020] HCAB 4 (17 June 2020)

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
Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia	Administrative Law
Pickett v Western Australia; Mead v Western Australia; Mead v Western Australia; Anthony v Western Australia; TSM (A Child) v Western Australia	Criminal Law
Cumberland v The Queen	Criminal Practice
Binsaris v Northern Territory of Australia; Webster v Northern Territory of Australia; O’Shea v Northern Territory of Australia; Austral v Northern Territory of Australia	Tort

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CED16 & Anor	Migration Law
Lewis v The Australian Capital Territory	Tort
State of Queensland v The Estate of the Late Jennifer Leanne Masson	Tort
Berry & Anor v CCL Secure Pty Ltd	Trade Practices

4: Original Jurisdiction

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v AAM17 & Anor	Administrative Law
Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inc v New Acland Coal Pty Ltd & Ors	Administrative Law
Bell v The Queen	Criminal Law
Peniamina v The Queen	Criminal Law
Minister for Home Affairs v DUA16 & Anor; Minister for Home Affairs v CHK16 & Anor	Migration Law
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Makasa	Migration Law

7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

Case	Title
UD v The Queen	Constitutional Law

8: Special Leave Refused

2: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the April 2020 sittings.

Administrative Law

Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia

S262/2019: [2020] HCA 19

Judgment delivered: 29 May 2020

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ

Catchwords:

Administrative law (Cth)
– Judicial review – Archives – Access to records – Where Governor-General engaged in correspondence with Her Majesty the Queen – Where correspondence described as personal and confidential – Where Official Secretary to Governor-General kept correspondence and made arrangement to deposit correspondence with predecessor organisation to National Archives of Australia ("Archives") – Where correspondence deposited by Official Secretary on instructions of former Governor-General after his retirement – Where Archives Act 1983 (Cth) subsequently enacted – Where s 31 of Archives Act provides that Commonwealth records within care of Archives must be made available for public access when within "open access period" – Where s 3(1) defines "Commonwealth record" as including "record that is the property of the Commonwealth or of a Commonwealth institution" – Where "Commonwealth institution" defined as including "the official…

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: [2020] HCAB 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia concerned whether correspondence between the Governor-General and the Queen was Commonwealth property and thus publicly accessible. Pickett v Western Australia involved whether the appellants could be found guilty of murder when one member of the group who actually committed the offence was not criminally responsible. In Cumberland v The Queen, the issue was whether the Court of Criminal Appeal failed to accord the appellant procedural fairness in the conduct of the hearing of the appeal against sentence. Binsaris v Northern Territory of Australia involved whether the use of tear gas by a prison officer in a youth detention centre was lawful. The High Court held in Hocking that the correspondence was Commonwealth property and thus publicly accessible. The Court held in Pickett that the appellants could be found guilty of murder, as the jury could convict them if they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the other members of the group committed the offence. The Court held in Cumberland that the Court of Criminal Appeal failed to accord the appellant procedural fairness, and the matter should be remitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal for re-sentencing of the appellant. The Court held in Binsaris that the use of tear gas by the prison officer was lawful, as the officer was acting in the course of his duties as a prison officer.

Orders