Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 7 September 2016 27 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2016] HCAB 7 (7 September 2016)

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: Cases Handed Down
2: Cases Reserved
3: Original Jurisdiction
4: Special Leave Granted
5: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
6: Special Leave Refused

Summary of New Entries

1: Cases Handed Down

Case	Title
Murphy & Anor v Electoral Commissioner & Anor	Constitutional Law
Miller v The Queen; Smith v The Queen; Presley v The Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of South Australia	Criminal Law
Sio v The Queen	Criminal Law
NH v The Director of Public Prosecutions; Jakaj v The Director of Public Prosecutions; Zefi v The Director of Public Prosecutions; Stakaj v The Director of Public Prosecutions	Criminal Law
The Queen v Baden-Clay	Criminal Law
Deal v Father Pius Kodakkathanath	Occupational Health and Safety
The Maritime Union of Australia & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor	Statutes

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Bucca v The Queen	Criminal Law
Castle v The Queen	Criminal Law
Ainsworth & Ors v Albrecht & Anor	Procedure
Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Collins & Anor	Procedure
Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Tomes	Procedure
Blank v Commissioner of Taxation	Taxation
Bywater Investments Limited & Ors v Commissioner of Taxation	Taxation
Hua Wang Bank Berhad v Commissioner of Taxation	Taxation
Comcare v Martin	Workers Compensation

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
ResourceCo Material Solutions Pty Ltd & Anor v State of Victoria & Anor	Constitutional Law

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
AAR15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection	Administrative Law
Perara-Cathcart v The Queen	Criminal Law
Prior v Mole	Criminal Law
Hughes v The Queen	Criminal Law
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Kumar & Ors	Migration
Stillman v Rusbourne & Ors	Negligence
Western Australian Planning Commission v Leith; Western Australian Planning Commission v Southregal Pty Ltd & Anor	Planning

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the August 2016 sittings.

Constitutional Law

Murphy & Anor v Electoral Commissioner & Anor

M247/2015: [2016] HCA 36

Orders pronounced: 12 May 2016

Reasons published: 5 September 2016

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

Catchwords:

Constitutional law (Cth) – Legislative power – Franchise – Power of Parliament to regulate exercise of entitlement to enrol to vote – Provisions of Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) precluding consideration of claims for enrolment or transfer of enrolment and amendment of Electoral Rolls during "suspension period" from 8pm on day of closing of Electoral Rolls until close of polling for election – Whether burden on constitutional mandate that Parliament be "directly chosen by the people" – Whether burden justified by substantial reason – Relevance of Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007)…

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: [2016] HCAB 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia handed down several decisions during August 2016. One of the decisions concerned the constitutionality of provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) which precluded consideration of claims for enrolment or transfer of enrolment and amendment of Electoral Rolls during the "suspension period" from 8pm on day of closing of Electoral Rolls until close of polling for election. The Court held that the provisions did not impose a burden on the constitutional mandate that Parliament be "directly chosen by the people" that was not justified by a substantial reason. The Court also held that the provisions were reasonably appropriate and adapted to the achievement of the legitimate end of avoiding confusion and inaccuracy in the electoral rolls. The Court rejected the argument that the provisions were not suitable because they did not provide for an obvious and compelling alternative.

In another case, the Court considered the doctrine of extended joint criminal enterprise liability. The Court held that the doctrine should not be confined or abandoned in light of the recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8. The Court held that the doctrine was a proper basis for conviction of murder where there was evidence of a common purpose to commit a violent crime.

The Court also considered the admissibility of hearsay evidence in a criminal trial. The Court held that a representation made in circumstances that made it likely that the representation was reliable could be admitted as hearsay evidence under s 65(2)(d) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The Court held that the admission of such evidence did not render an acquittal on a charge of murder and a conviction on a charge of armed robbery with wounding inconsistent verdicts.

Finally, the Court considered the validity of a determination made by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection pursuant to s 41 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Court held that the determination was beyond the power conferred by the Act and was therefore invalid. The Court held that the determination entirely negated the operation of the general rule in extending the migration zone to non-citizens participating in or supporting offshore resources activity.

Orders