Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 27 June 2018 38 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2018] HCAB 5 (27 June 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
DL v The Queen	Criminal Law
Lane v The Queen	Criminal Law
Minogue v State of Victoria	Criminal Law
Trkulja v Google LLC	Defamation
CRI028 v Republic of Nauru	Migration
Amaca Pty Limited v Latz; Latz v Amaca Pty Limited	Negligence
Rozenblit v Vainer & Anor	Procedure

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Mighty River International Limited v Hughes & Ors; Mighty River International Limited v Mineral Resources Limited & Ors	Corporations
Johnson v The Queen	Criminal Law
The Queen v Dennis Bauer (A Pseudonym) (No 2)	Criminal Law
ETA067 v The Republic of Nauru	Migration
HFM043 v The Republic of Nauru	Migration
WET052 v The Republic of Nauru	Migration
Commissioner of State Revenue v Placer Dome Inc	Stamp Duty

4: Original Jurisdiction

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
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

7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

2: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the June 2018 sittings.

Criminal Law

DL v The Queen

A38/2017: [2018] HCA 26

Judgment delivered: 20 June 2018

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

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Trial by judge alone – Adequacy of reasons – Where appellant convicted of "[p]ersistent sexual exploitation of a child" – Where offence comprised of two or more acts of sexual exploitation separated by not less than three days – Where complainant alleged various acts of sexual exploitation over many years – Where alleged inconsistencies and implausibilities in complainant's evidence – Where trial judge regarded complainant as reliable witness as to "core allegations" – Whether trial judge's reasons inadequate because failed to identify two or more acts constituting offence – Whether trial judge's reasons inadequate because failed to explain process of reasoning.
Words and phrases – "adequacy of reasons", "basis for decision", "conflict between evidence", "credibility", "inadequacy of reasons", "inconsistencies in evidence", "process of reasoning", "reasons", "trial by judge alone".
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) – s 50(1).

Appealed from SASC (FC): [2015] SASCFC 24

Held: Appeal dismissed

Return to Top

Lane v The Queen

S308/2017: [2018] HCA 28

Judgment delivered: 20 June 2018

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

Catchwords:

Criminal law…

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 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DL v The Queen was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the appellant was convicted of persistent sexual exploitation of a child. The appeal was against the adequacy of the reasons provided by the trial judge for the conviction. The key legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge's reasons were adequate in identifying the two or more acts constituting the offence and explaining the process of reasoning. The Court held that the appeal should be dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed. The Court found that the trial judge's reasons were adequate in identifying the acts constituting the offence and that there was no inadequacy in the process of reasoning.

In Lane v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of manslaughter, and the key issue before the Court was whether the absence of a unanimity direction precluded the application of the proviso. The Court held that the appeal should be allowed, and the conviction was quashed. The Court found that the absence of a unanimity direction constituted a fundamental defect that led to a substantial miscarriage of justice.

In Minogue v State of Victoria, the appellant challenged the application of new parole legislation to his case. The key legal issue was whether the new legislation applied to the appellant's case, given that he had already become eligible for parole and applied for it before the legislation came into effect. The Court held that the questions raised should be answered, and the appeal was allowed. The Court found that the new legislation applied to the appellant's case, and he was not entitled to parole.

In Trkulja v Google LLC, the key issue before the Court was whether the respondent published allegedly defamatory matter and whether the proceeding had no real prospect of success. The Court held that the appeal should be allowed with costs, and the proceeding was dismissed. The Court found that the respondent did not publish the allegedly defamatory matter, and the proceeding had no real prospect of success.

Orders