Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 24 September 2019 37 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2019] HCAB 7 (24 September 2019)

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
Minogue v State of Victoria	Constitutional Law
Taylor v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth	Criminal Practice
Lee v Lee & Ors; Hsu v RACQ Insurance Limited; Lee v RACQ Insurance Limited	Insurance Law
Brisbane City Council v Amos	Limitation of Actions
Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow & Anor	Practice and Procedure

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
De Silva v The Queen	Criminal Law
Fennell v The Queen	Criminal Law
HT v The Queen & Anor	Criminal Law
State of New South Wales v Robinson	Tort Law

4: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
Smethurst & Anor v Commissioner of Police & Anor	Constitutional Law

5: Section 40 Removal

Case	Title
KMC v Director of Public Prosecutions (SA)	Constitutional Law

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Moore v Scenic Tours Pty Ltd	Consumer Protection
Pickett v The State of Western Australia; Mead v The State of Western Australia; Mead v The State of Western Australia; Anthony v The State of Western Australia; TSM (A Child) v The State of Western Australia	Criminal Law
Strbak v The Queen	Criminal Law
Swan v The Queen	Criminal Law
Mackellar Mining Equipment Pty Ltd and Dramatic Investments Pty Ltd t/as Partnership 818 & Anor v Thornton & Ors	Private International 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 September 2019 sittings.

Constitutional Law

Minogue v State of Victoria

M162/2018: [2019] HCA 31

Judgment delivered: 11 September 2019

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

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – State Parliament – Constitution – Ch III – Where plaintiff convicted of murder of police officer – Where plaintiff sentenced to imprisonment for life with non-parole period – Where plaintiff's non-parole period expired – Where s 74AB of Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) prevented making of parole order in respect of plaintiff unless Adult Parole Board satisfied plaintiff in imminent danger of dying or seriously incapacitated and does not have physical ability to harm any person, and does not pose risk to community – Where s 74AB identified plaintiff by name and applied only to plaintiff – Where plaintiff not in imminent danger of dying or seriously incapacitated – Where s 74AAA of Corrections Act imposed conditions for making parole order if person convicted of murder and victim police officer – Whether ss 74AB and 74AAA contrary…

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: [2019] HCAB 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Minogue, a prisoner who had served the non-parole period for a murder conviction, challenged the validity of two sections of the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) which imposed additional conditions on parole eligibility. The Court held that the provisions were not invalid as they did not constitute an additional or separate punishment and did not amount to legislative re-sentencing. The Court also held that the provisions did not infringe the separation of judicial power. Taylor challenged the validity of sections of the Criminal Code (Cth) which restricted the ability of a private citizen to prosecute certain offences. The Court held that the sections did not preclude a private citizen from instituting proceedings for the commitment for trial of any person in respect of an indictable offence. The Court held that s 13(a) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) provided that a private citizen may institute proceedings unless the contrary intention appeared, and the contrary intention did not appear in the sections of the Criminal Code (Cth). Lee was injured in a motor vehicle collision. She alleged that her father, who was driving the vehicle, was negligent. The trial judge found that Lee was driving the vehicle. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the decision. The Court held that the Court of Appeal had erred in failing to conduct a "real review" of the evidence given and the trial judge's reasons for judgment. The Court held that the trial judge's findings were not glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences. The Brisbane City Council brought an action against Amos for overdue rates and charges. Amos argued that the claim was subject to a six-year limitation period. The Council argued that the claim was subject to a 12-year limitation period. The Court held that the claim was subject to both limitation periods, but the 12-year limitation period applied to exclude the operation of the six-year limitation period. Bell, a barrister, incurred costs in relation to a proceeding in which she was a self-represented litigant. She sought to recover those costs from the opposing party. The Court held that the Chorley exception to the general rule that a self-represented litigant may not obtain any recompense for the value of his or her time spent in litigation did not apply to barristers. The Court held that the exception was not part of the common law of Australia.

Orders