Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 16 March 2017 27 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2017] HCAB 2 (16 March 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
Prior v Mole	Criminal Law
Perara-Cathcart v The Queen	Criminal Law
Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte	Family Law
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Kumar & Ors	Migration

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Air New Zealand Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission	Competition 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

4: Original Jurisdiction

5: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Limited v Compton	Bankruptcy
Thorne v Kennedy	Family Law
Aldi Foods Pty Limited v Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees Association & Anor	Industrial 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 March 2017 sittings.

Criminal Law

Prior v Mole

D5/2016: [2017] HCA 10

Judgment delivered: 8 March 2017

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

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Procedure – Apprehension and detention – Reasonable grounds – Where appellant drinking alcohol in public place near shops selling alcohol – Where appellant intoxicated and behaving belligerently towards police – Where appellant apprehended on basis of police officer's belief that appellant would commit offence of drinking liquor in regulated place – Whether belief held on reasonable grounds – Whether policing experience valid basis for reasonable grounds for forming belief.
Criminal law – Procedure – Apprehension and detention – Statutory powers of apprehension – Where appellant apprehended on basis of police officer's belief that appellant would commit offence of drinking liquor in regulated place – Where maximum penalty for offence forfeiture of liquor and issue of contravention notice – Whether decision to apprehend exceeded limits of apprehension power.
Words and phrases – "likely to commit an offence", "policing experience", "reasonable grounds".
Liquor Act (NT) – s 101U(1).
Police Administration Act (NT) – s 128(1).

Appealed from NTSC (CA): [2016] NTCA 2; (2016) 304 FLR 418

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Return to Top

Perara-Cathcart v The Queen

A39/2016: [2017] HCA 9

Judgment delivered: 1 March 2017

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

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Directions to jury – Where discreditable conduct evidence admitted under s 34P of Evidence Act 1929 (SA) – Relevance of discreditable conduct evidence – Whether trial…

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 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Prior v Mole [2017] HCA 10 was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Prior, had been apprehended and detained by police on the basis of the officer's belief that Prior would commit an offence by drinking liquor in a regulated place. Prior appealed against the decision of the Northern Territory Supreme Court, arguing that the officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that he would commit the offence and that the decision to apprehend exceeded the limits of the apprehension power. The key issues for the Court to decide were whether the officer's belief was held on reasonable grounds and whether the decision to apprehend exceeded the limits of the apprehension power. The Court held that the appeal was dismissed and that the officer's belief was held on reasonable grounds based on his policing experience. The Court also found that the decision to apprehend did not exceed the limits of the apprehension power.

In Perara-Cathcart v The Queen [2017] HCA 9, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal against conviction in relation to the admission of discreditable conduct evidence. The appellant argued that the trial judge had not adequately directed the jury on the permissible and impermissible uses of discreditable conduct evidence. The Court held that the appeal could be dismissed pursuant to the proviso in Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 353(1) because the majority of the Full Court found a miscarriage of justice occasioned by misdirection to the jury but were divided as to whether the misdirection occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Court held that the appeal was dismissed.

In Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte & Anor [2017] HCA 8, the High Court of Australia considered a case involving children who had been taken overseas by their father in breach of parenting orders. The mother applied for an order for the return of the children and for living arrangements upon their return. The Court held that the primary judge was not erroneous in discounting the weight given to the views expressed by the children or in considering the father's breach of parenting orders relevant to the children's best interests. The Court also held that the parenting orders could be made in favour of strangers to the proceedings.

In Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Kumar & Ors [2017] HCA 11, the High Court of Australia considered the interpretation of s 36(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). The key issue was whether the application for a visa could be assessed as if it had been made before the expiry of the respondent's second visa. The Court held that the appeal was allowed because s 36(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act allowed the application to be assessed as if it had been made before the expiry of the second visa.

Orders