Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 17 May 2017 31 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2017] HCAB 4 (17 May 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
Aubrey (MA) v The Queen	Criminal Law
Smith v The Queen; The Queen v Afford	Criminal Law
Pickering v The Queen	Criminal Law
Plaintiff M96A/2016 & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor	Migration
Talacko v Bennett & Ors	Procedure

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton	Bankruptcy
Transport Accident Commission v Katanas	Compensation
Brown & Anor v The State of Tasmania	Constitutional Law
GAX v The Queen	Criminal Law
Plaintiff S195/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Ors	Migration
State of New South Wales v DC & Anor	Negligence

4: Original Jurisdiction

5: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Woollahra Municipal Council v Minister for Local Government & Ors	Administrative Law
Kalbasi v The State of Western Australia	Criminal Law
Regional Express Holdings Limited v Australian Federation of Air Pilots	Industrial Law
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union & Anor	Industrial Law
Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd & Anor	Judicial Review
Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd v Vadasz & Ors	Judicial Review
Briggs v State of New South Wales	Negligence

6: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

2: Cases Handed Down

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

Criminal Law

Aubrey (MA) v The Queen

S274/2016: [2017] HCA 18

Judgment delivered: 10 May 2017

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

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Infliction of grievous bodily harm – Meaning of "inflicts" – Where appellant caused complainant to contract human immunodeficiency virus – Whether infliction requires force and immediate physical injury – Whether communication of infection or disease amounts to infliction – Consideration of R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23 and R v Dica [2004] QB 1257.
Criminal law – Fault element – Recklessness – Foresight of risk – Where appellant diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus – Where appellant knew of possibility of transmitting virus through unprotected sexual intercourse – Whether foresight of possibility of risk sufficient to establish recklessness.
Words and phrases – "always speaking", "contemporary ideas and understanding", "grievous bodily harm", "inflicts", "maliciously", "recklessly".
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – ss 5, 35(1)(b), 36.

Appealed from NSWSC (CCA): [2015] NSWCCA 323

Return to Top

Smith v The Queen; The Queen v Afford

S249/2016, M144/2016: [2017] HCA 19

Judgment delivered: 10 May 2017

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon…

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 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pickering v The Queen involved the respondent who stabbed the deceased during a confrontation. The respondent was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter. The respondent sought to rely on s 31(1) of the Criminal Code (Q), which states that a person is not criminally responsible for an act if it is done in resisting actual and unlawful violence threatened to the person. However, the trial judge did not leave the issue of self-defence to the jury, and the respondent argued that s 31(2) rendered s 31(1) unavailable in this case. The High Court of Australia held that s 31(2) did not render s 31(1) unavailable where the evidence disclosed that the act of the accused constituted an offence described in s 31(2) regardless of the charge. Therefore, the respondent could not rely on s 31(1) to deny criminal responsibility in relation to the offence of manslaughter. The appeal was dismissed.

In the case of Plaintiff M96A/2016 & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor, the plaintiffs were unauthorised maritime arrivals who were brought to Australia from a regional processing country for the temporary purpose of medical treatment. They were detained under ss 189 and 196 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) until their removal from Australia. The plaintiffs challenged the validity of the detention provisions, arguing that they did not authorise detention for a temporary purpose and that the duration of detention was not capable of objective determination. The High Court of Australia held that ss 189 and 196 validly authorised detention while in Australia for a temporary purpose and that the plaintiffs were detained for a lawful purpose. The court also held that the duration of detention was capable of objective determination. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders