Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 19 November 2018 32 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2018] HCAB 9 (19 November 2018)

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
Strickland (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors; Galloway (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors; Hodges (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors; Tucker (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors	Criminal Law
Comptroller General of Customs v Zappia	Customs and Excise
McPhillamy v The Queen	Evidence
SAS Trustee Corporation v Miles	Superannuation and Pensions

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Rinehart & Anor v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd & Ors; Rinehart & Anor v Georgina Hope Rinehart (in her personal capacity and as trustee of the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust and as trustee of the HFMF Trust) & Ors	Arbitration
Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2017	Criminal Law
The Republic of Nauru v WET040	Migration
TTY167 v Republic of Nauru	Migration
KN (deceased) and Others on behalf of the Tjiwarl and Tjiwarl#2 Native Title Claim Groups v State of Western Australia & Ors	Native Title
Tjungarrayi & Ors v State of Western Australia & Ors	Native Title
Parkes Shire Council v South West Helicopters Pty Limited	Tort

4: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
Glencore International AG & Ors v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia & Ors	Constitutional Law

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
OKS v The State of Western Australia	Criminal Law
Lee v Lee & Ors; Hsu v RACQ Insurance Limited; Lee v RACQ Insurance Limited	Insurance 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 November 2018 sittings.

Criminal Law

Strickland (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors; Galloway (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors; Hodges (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors; Tucker (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors

M168/2017; M174/2017; M176/2017; M175/2017: [2018] HCA 53

Judgment delivered: 8 November 2018

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

Catchwords:

Criminal practice – Abuse of process – Where Australian Crime Commission ("ACC") received information concerning allegations that company involved in criminal activity – Where allegations referred to Australian Federal Police ("AFP") – Where appellants declined to participate in cautioned record of interview with AFP – Where appellants compulsorily examined by ACC – Where examiner aware that appellants were suspects who may be…

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: [2018] HCAB 9
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Strickland (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors; Galloway (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors; Hodges (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors; Tucker (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors was heard by the High Court of Australia. The case concerned whether examinations of the appellants by the Australian Crime Commission were unlawful and whether the appellants suffered a forensic disadvantage as a result of the examinations. The court held that the examinations were unlawful and that the appellants suffered a forensic disadvantage as a result. The court found that the Commission's conduct was reckless and that a permanent stay of the prosecutions was necessary to prevent the administration of justice from falling into disrepute. The appeals were allowed and the prosecutions were permanently stayed.

In Comptroller General of Customs v Zappia, the court considered whether the respondent was a person who "has, or has been entrusted with, the possession, custody or control" of dutiable goods subject to customs control. The court held that the respondent was such a person and that the respondent was liable for the unpaid duty. The appeal was allowed and the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was quashed.

In McPhillamy v The Queen, the court considered whether tendency evidence had significant probative value. The court held that the tendency evidence had significant probative value and that it was admissible. The appeal was allowed and the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal was quashed.

In SAS Trustee Corporation v Miles, the court considered whether the respondent was entitled to an additional amount of annual superannuation allowance. The court held that the respondent was not entitled to the additional amount. The appeal was allowed and the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was quashed.

Orders