Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 20 June 2016 22 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2016] HCAB 5 (20 June 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
Alqudsi v The Queen	Constitutional Law
Betts v The Queen	Criminal Law
Hall v Hall	Family Law
Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott & Ors	Torts

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Cunningham & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor	Constitutional Law
Zefi v The Director of Public Prosecutions; Jakaj v The Director of Public Prosecutions; Stakaj v The Director of Public Prosecutions; NH v The Director of Public Prosecutions	Criminal Law
Graham v The Queen	Criminal Law
Sio v The Queen	Criminal Law
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor v SZSSJ & Anor; Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Ors v SZTZI	Migration
Deal v Kodakkathanath	Workers Compensation

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Bucca v The Queen	Criminal Law
Castle v The Queen	Criminal Law
New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council v Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act	Land
Kendirjian v Lepore & Anor	Negligence
Ainsworth & Ors v Albrecht & Anor	Procedure
Commissioner of State Revenue v ACN 005 057 379 Pty Ltd	Taxation

1: Cases Handed Down

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

Constitutional Law

Alqudsi v The Queen

S279/2015: [2016] HCA 24.

Judgment delivered: 15 June 2016

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

Catchwords:

Constitutional law (Cth) – Trial by jury – Trial on indictment for offence against Commonwealth law – Where applicant pleaded not guilty in Supreme Court to charges on indictment under Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 (Cth) – Where applicant sought trial by judge order under State law empowering State courts to order trial by judge alone – Whether application of State law to applicant's trial inconsistent with Constitution, s 80.

High Court
– Stare decisis – Whether Brown v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 171 should be re-opened and overruled.

Words and phrases
– "elective mechanism", "indictment", "interests of justice", "shall be by jury", "State court principle", "trial by judge alone", "trial by judge order", "trial by jury", "trial on indictment", "waiver of trial by jury".

Constitution
– s 80.

Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 (Cth)
– ss 7, 9A.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
– s 68.

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
– s 132.

Held: Questions answered.

Return to Top

Criminal Law

Betts v The Queen

S281/2015: [2016] HCA 25.

Judgment delivered: 15 June 2016.

Coram: French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Gordon JJ.

Catchwords:

Criminal…

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 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Alqudsi v The Queen, the court was tasked with determining whether an individual who pleaded not guilty to charges under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 (Cth) could be subject to a trial by judge alone under a State law. The issue arose from the interpretation of the Constitution and whether it mandated trial by jury for serious offences under Commonwealth law. The court examined the scope of s 80 of the Constitution and whether it precluded the application of State laws that allowed for trials by judge alone in such cases. It also considered the implications of the decision on the precedent set by Brown v The Queen. The court ultimately held that the application of the State law to the applicant's trial was inconsistent with the Constitution, as s 80 requires a trial by jury for serious offences against Commonwealth law.

In Betts v The Queen, the court was presented with the issue of whether the refusal by an appellate court to take into account additional material during re-sentencing amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The appellant had appealed against the severity of sentences imposed, and additional material was produced that contained evidence inconsistent with the appellant's case at the sentence hearing. The court had to decide whether the refusal to consider the additional material constituted a miscarriage of justice and whether the court had properly exercised its re-sentencing discretion. The court concluded that the refusal to take into account the additional material did not amount to a miscarriage of justice, as the court had correctly exercised its discretion in re-sentencing the appellant.

The High Court's decisions in these cases reflect its role in interpreting constitutional provisions and ensuring the proper application of legal principles in criminal proceedings. In Alqudsi v The Queen, the court reinforced the constitutional requirement for trial by jury in serious offences under Commonwealth law, while in Betts v The Queen, it affirmed the appellate court's discretion in re-sentencing and the conditions under which additional material may be considered.

Orders