Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 28 June 2017 33 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2017] HCAB 5 (28 June 2017)

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: Special Leave Granted
6: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
7: Special Leave Refused

1: Summary of New Entries

2: Cases Handed Down

Case	Title
The Queen v Dickman	Criminal Law
GAX v The Queen	Criminal Law
Rizeq v The State of Western Australia	Criminal Law
Hughes v The Queen	Criminal Law
State of New South Wales v DC & Anor	Negligence
Air New Zealand Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission	Trade Practices

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Chiro v The Queen	Criminal Law
Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym)	Criminal Law
Hamra v The Queen	Criminal Law
The Queen v Dookheea	Criminal Law
The Queen v Holliday	Criminal Law
Van Beelen v The Queen	Criminal Law

4: Original Jurisdiction

5: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Clone Pty Ltd v Players Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers & Managers Appointed) & Ors	Procedure
Pike & Anor v Tighe & Ors	Real Property
Trkulja v Google Inc	Torts
Burns v Gaynor & Ors; Burns v Corbett & Ors; Attorney General for New South Wales v Burns & Ors; Attorney General for New South Wales v Burns & Ors; State of New South Wales v Burns & Ors	Constitutional Law

6: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

2: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the June 2017 sittings.

Criminal Law

The Queen v Dickman

M162/2016: [2017] HCA 24

Judgment delivered: 21 June 2017

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

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Identification evidence – Where victim's identification of accused on photoboard admitted at trial – Where police conveyed to victim that photograph of suspect would be on photoboard – Where victim had made erroneous previous identification – Whether probative value of identification evidence outweighed by unfair prejudice to accused – Whether evidence should have been excluded under s 137 of Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) – Whether admission of identification evidence occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice.
Words and phrases – "identification evidence", "probative value", "substantial miscarriage of justice", "unfair prejudice".
Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) – s 137.

Appealed from VSC (CA): [2015] VSCA 311

Return to Top

GAX v The Queen

B72/2016: [2017] HCA 25

Judgment delivered: 21 June 2017

Coram: Bell, Gageler, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Appeal – Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence – Where appellant convicted on one count of aggravated indecent dealing with child and acquitted on two counts of aggravated indecent…

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: [2017] HCAB 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court handed down six criminal judgments on 21 June 2017. The first case, The Queen v Dickman, involved an appeal against conviction. The Court was required to decide whether identification evidence should have been excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), and whether its admission occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Court held that the probative value of the identification evidence was outweighed by the unfair prejudice to the accused, and the admission of the evidence had occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice. The second case, Rizeq v The State of Western Australia, involved an appeal against conviction. The Court was required to decide whether a jury verdict could be made by a majority of jurors in a trial for an offence against a law of Western Australia in a federal jurisdiction. The Court held that the jury must be unanimous. The third case, Hughes v The Queen, involved an appeal against conviction. The Court was required to decide whether the tendency evidence had significant probative value. The Court held that the evidence was relevant and had significant probative value. The fourth case, State of New South Wales v DC & Anor, involved a negligence claim. The Court was required to decide whether the State owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs. The Court held that the State owed a duty of care, and was vicariously liable for the breach of duty. The fifth case, Air New Zealand Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, involved a trade practices claim. The Court was required to decide whether the market for air cargo services was "in Australia" for the purposes of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The Court held that the market for air cargo services was not "in Australia". The final case, Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Te Puia v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Court was required to decide whether the Act was inconsistent with the essential character of a court, and whether it limited the ability of affected persons to seek relief under s 75(v) of the Constitution. The Court held that the Act was consistent with the essential character of a court, and did not limit the ability of affected persons to seek relief under s 75(v) of the Constitution.

Orders