Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 24 April 2020 30 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2020] HCAB 3 (24 April 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
Coughlan v The Queen	Criminal Law
Pell v The Queen	Criminal Law
Commonwealth of Australia v Helicopter Resources Pty Ltd	Criminal Practice
Moore v Scenic Tours Pty Ltd	Damages
Smethurst v Commissioner of Police	Police

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Cumberland v The Queen	Criminal Law

4: Original Jurisdiction

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Wigmans v AMP Limited & Ors	Civil Procedure
Westpac Securities Administration Ltd & Anor v Australian Securities and Investments Commission	Corporations
GBF v The Queen	Criminal Law
Clayton v Bant	Family Law
AUS17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor	Migration Law
DVO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor	Migration 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 April 2020 sittings.

Criminal Law

Coughlan v The Queen

B60/2019: [2020] HCA 15

Publication of reasons: 24 April 2020

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

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Arson and attempted fraud – Appeal against conviction – Where prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence – Where appellant's house destroyed by explosion and resulting fire – Where appellant present at and seen running away from scene – Where appellant gave version of events to police consistent with innocence – Where appellant made insurance claim on house and contents in connection with fire – Where no apparent financial motive to commit offences – Where expert evidence that explosion caused by build-up of gaseous vapours – Where petrol residues found on appellant's clothes – Where no evidence of petrol residues in house – Whether open to jury to be satisfied of appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Whether prosecution excluded reasonable possibility that explosion caused by build-up of gas ignited by electrical fire.
Words and phrases – "absence of apparent financial motive", "arson", "attempted fraud", "beyond reasonable doubt", "circumstantial case", "consciousness of guilt", "inference consistent with innocence", "lack of motive", "reasonable possibility", "scientific evidence".
Criminal Code (Qld) – ss 408C(1)(c), 459, 461(1)(a).

Appealed from QSC (CA): [2019] QCA 65

Held: Appeal allowed (orders made allowing the appeal on 12 February 2020).

Return to Top

Pell v The Queen

M112/2019: [2020] HCA 12

Judgment delivered: 7 April 2020

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

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Sexual offences against children – Appeal against…

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 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Coughlan v The Queen [2020] HCA 15 involved an appeal against a conviction for arson and attempted fraud. The appellant's house was destroyed by an explosion and resulting fire, and petrol residues were found on his clothes. However, there was no apparent financial motive for the offences, and expert evidence suggested the explosion was caused by a build-up of gaseous vapours. The legal issues in the case centred on whether the prosecution had excluded the reasonable possibility that the explosion was caused by the build-up of gas ignited by an electrical fire, and whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to satisfy the jury of the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court found that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to satisfy the jury of the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeal.

In Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12, the appellant was convicted of sexual offences against children. The Court of Appeal had assessed the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable, and witnesses gave unchallenged evidence of specific recollections, practices, and routines inconsistent with the acceptance of the complainant's account. The legal issues in the case involved whether the unchallenged inconsistent evidence required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained doubt as to the applicant's guilt and whether the Court of Appeal was required to take into account the forensic disadvantage experienced by the applicant. The High Court found that the unchallenged inconsistent evidence required the jury to have entertained doubt as to the applicant's guilt, and the Court of Appeal was required to take into account the forensic disadvantage experienced by the applicant. The Court granted special leave, allowed the appeal, and entered an acquittal.

Commonwealth of Australia v Helicopter Resources Pty Ltd & Ors [2020] HCA 16 involved a case where the employer and the Commonwealth of Australia were prosecuted for alleged failures to comply with the duty to ensure worker health and safety. The legal issues in the case involved whether the invocation of investigative power to compel an employee to give evidence about a matter with respect to which the employer stood charged amounted to compelling the employer to give evidence contrary to the rule that an accused is not required to assist the Crown in proving its case. The High Court found that the invocation of investigative power did not amount to compelling the employer to give evidence contrary to the rule and allowed the appeal.

Moore v Scenic Tours Pty Ltd [2020] HCA 17 involved a case where the appellant claimed damages for disappointment and distress after a holiday cruise tour was severely disrupted by adverse weather conditions. The legal issues in the case involved whether the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) precluded damages for disappointment and distress not consequential upon physical or psychiatric injury. The High Court found that the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) did not preclude damages for disappointment and distress and allowed the appeal.

Orders