Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 26 April 2016 29 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2016] HCAB 3 (26 April 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
Zaburoni v The Queen	Criminal Law
IMM v The Queen	Evidence
Mok v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)	Federal Jurisdiction
Fischer & Ors v Nemeske Pty Ltd & Ors	Trusts
Coverdale v West Coast Council	Property

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Bell Group NV (In Liq) & Anor v State of Western Australia	Constitutional Law
Maranoa Transport Pty Ltd (In Liq) & Ors v State of Western Australia & Ors	Constitutional Law
WA Glendinning & Associates Pty Ltd v The State of Western Australia	Constitutional Law
Betts v The Queen	Criminal Law
Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott & Ors	Torts

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
Day v Australian Electoral Officer for the State of South Australia v Anor	Constitutional Law
Madden & Ors v Australian Electoral Officer for the State of Tasmania & Ors	Constitutional Law
Murphy v The Electoral Commissioner & Anor	Constitutional Law

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC	Torts

1: Cases Handed Down

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

Criminal Law

Zaburoni v The Queen

B69/2015: [2016] HCA 12

Judgment Delivered: 6 April 2016.

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

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Criminal liability – Criminal Code (Q), s 317(b) – Intent to cause specific result – Where appellant HIV positive – Where appellant lied to complainant about his HIV status – Where complainant diagnosed with HIV after frequent unprotected sex with appellant – Whether element of intent to cause specific result satisfied – Whether intent could be inferred from frequency of conduct giving rise to risk of specific result – Whether intent proved by evidence of awareness of risk.

Words and phrases – "awareness of risk", "intent", "motive", "proof of intention", "recklessness", "serious disease", "specific intent".

Criminal Code (Q) – ss 23, 317(b).

Appealed from QSC (CA): [2014] QCA 77.

Held: Appeal allowed.

Return to Top

Evidence

IMM v The Queen

D12/2015: [2016] HCA 14

Judgment Delivered: 14 April 2016.

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

Catchwords:

Evidence – Admissibility and relevance – Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT), ss 97(1)(b), 137 – Where appellant charged with indecent dealing with child and sexual intercourse with child – Where tendency evidence given by complainant that appellant ran his hand up complainant's leg – Where evidence tendered of complaints made by complainant concerning appellant – Whether probative value of evidence assessed…

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 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zaburoni v The Queen involved an appeal against a conviction for criminal transmission of HIV. The appellant, who was HIV positive, engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with the complainant without disclosing his HIV status. The legal issue was whether the appellant intended to cause the specific result of infecting the complainant with HIV. The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, finding that the prosecution had not proved the necessary intent. The court held that the appellant's conduct, while reckless, did not demonstrate an intent to cause the specific result. IMM v The Queen dealt with the admissibility of evidence in a case of indecent dealing with a child and sexual intercourse with a child. The legal issue was whether the probative value of the complainant's tendency evidence outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice. The High Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge should have considered the credibility of the witness and the reliability of the evidence in assessing its probative value. Mok v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) involved a challenge to the application of New South Wales law in a prosecution for attempting to escape lawful custody. The legal issue was whether the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) applied New South Wales law as surrogate federal law and whether the prosecution was required to prove all elements of the offence under New South Wales law. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the prosecution was not required to prove all elements of the offence under New South Wales law. Fischer & Ors v Nemeske Pty Ltd & Ors involved an appeal against a decision that a trustee's distribution of trust property was not a valid exercise of the power of advancement. The legal issue was whether the trustee's actions constituted a valid exercise of the power to "advance" and "apply" trust capital or income. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trustee's actions did not constitute a valid exercise of the power.

Orders