Produced by the Legal Research Officer, High Court of Australia Library
[2019] HCAB 2 (2 April 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
Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2017
Criminal Law
Grajewski v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Criminal Law
OKS v Western Australia
Criminal Law
Northern Territory v Mr A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples; Commonwealth of Australia v Mr A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples; Mr A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples v Northern Territory
Native Title
3: Cases Reserved
Case
Title
Comcare v Banerji
Constitutional Law
Spence v State of Queensland
Constitutional Law
4: Original Jurisdiction
Case
Title
Taylor v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth
Administrative Law
Love v Commonwealth of Australia; Thoms v Commonwealth of Australia
Migration Law
5: Section 40 Removal
6: Special Leave Granted
Case
Title
Fennell v The Queen
Criminal Law
Lordianto & Anor v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police; Kalimuthu & Anor v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
Criminal Law
Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Sharpcan Pty Ltd
Taxation Law
7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
2: Cases Handed Down
The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the March 2019 sittings.
Criminal Law
Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2017
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ
Catchwords:
Criminal practice – Trial – Jury directions – Prasad direction – Where accused charged with murder – Where Prasad direction given over objection at close of Crown case – Where another Prasad direction given at close of defence case – Whether Prasad direction contrary to law and should not be administered to jury determining criminal trial.
Criminal practice – Jury – Reserve jurors – Where one of 13 jurors balloted off to consider response to Prasad direction – Where jury wished to hear more – Where juror balloted off re-joined jury – Where second ballot conducted to reduce jury to 12 jurors again – Where jury delivered verdicts of not guilty of murder and not guilty of manslaughter after second ballot – Whether ballot conducted at time at which "jury required to retire to consider its verdict".
Words and phrases – "fair trial", "fairness to the prosecution", "jury's suggested right to stop the case", "no case submission", "power of the trial judge", "practice of inviting…
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.
Continue reading High Court Bulletin
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
High Court Bulletin [2019] HCAB 2
Case
[2019] HCAB 2
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Grajewski v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2019] HCA 8 involved an appeal against a conviction for damaging property. The legal issue was whether the appellant could be convicted of damaging property when there was no alteration to the physical integrity of the property. The High Court held that the appeal should be allowed, the questions answered, and the conviction quashed. OKS v Western Australia [2019] HCA 10 involved an appeal against a conviction for indecently dealing with a child under 13 years of age. The legal issue was whether the trial judge's direction to the jury not to reason that the complainant's lies meant that all her evidence was dishonest and could not be relied upon was correct. The High Court held that the appeal should be allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered. Northern Territory v Mr A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples; Commonwealth of Australia v Mr A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples; Mr A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples v Northern Territory [2019] HCA 7 involved an appeal against a determination of compensation for the extinguishment of native title rights and interests. The legal issues were whether economic loss and cultural loss should be assessed separately, and the principles of assessment for compensation for economic and cultural loss. The High Court held that the appeal should be allowed in part, dismissed in part, and the determination of compensation varied.