Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 25 August 2015 29 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2015] HCAB 6 (25 August 2015)

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
Police v Dunstall	Criminal Law
Smith v The Queen	Criminal Law
Filippou v The Queen	Criminal Law
Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Limited	Estoppel
Ausnet Transmission Group Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia	Taxation

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Wright Prospecting Pty Limited v Mount Bruce Mining Pty Limited & Anor; Mount Bruce Mining Pty Limited v Wright Prospecting Pty Limited & Anor	Contracts
PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors	Procedure
Duncan v Independent Commission Against Corruption	Statutes
Alcan Gove Pty Ltd v Zabic	Torts

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
M68/15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Ors	Constitutional Law

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
O’Rafferty v The Queen	Criminal Law
Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors	Employment Law
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union & Anor v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate & Anor	Procedure
Attwells & Anor v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Limited	Torts
Fernando by his tutor Ley v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor	Torts

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the August 2015 sittings.

Criminal Law

Police v Dunstall

A5/2015: [2015] HCA 26.

Judgment delivered: 5 August 2015.

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

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – Section 47B(1)(a) of Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) created offence for person to drive motor vehicle while prescribed concentration of alcohol present in blood – Section 47K(1) of Act created presumption that breath analysis reading corresponded to blood alcohol level at time of analysis – Section 47K(1a) of Act provided presumption could only be rebutted if defendant arranged for blood sample to be taken in accordance with prescribed procedures and adduced evidence that analysis of blood demonstrates that breath analysis reading instrument gave exaggerated reading – Where respondent charged with offence against s 47B(1)(a) and pleaded not guilty – Where breath analysis reading indicated blood alcohol level above prescribed concentration – Where respondent arranged for blood sample to be taken but sample unable to be analysed through no fault of appellant or respondent – Where appellant sought to tender evidence of breath analysis reading – Whether there exists residual common law discretion to exclude lawfully obtained, probative, non-confessional evidence unaffected by impropriety or risk of prejudicial misuse where admission would render…

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: [2015] HCAB 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Police v Dunstall, the High Court considered the scope of the judicial discretion to exclude evidence in criminal proceedings under the Bunning v Cross discretion. The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the discretion could apply to exclude evidence of a breath analysis reading where admission of the evidence would render the trial of the accused unfair. In Smith v The Queen, the Court held that the non-disclosure of jury interim votes and voting patterns to counsel did not deny the appellant procedural fairness. The Court also considered the appropriate directions to be given to the jury as to the confidentiality of interim votes and voting patterns. In Filippou v The Queen, the Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence, holding that the sentencing judge was not bound to take the view of the facts most favourable to the offender where it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities that the appellant brought the murder weapon to the scene. In Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Limited, the Court held that the appellant was issue estopped by reason of the Federal Court proceedings from denying that the respondent was his employer. The Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the NSW Supreme Court for assessment of damages. In Ausnet Transmission Group Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Court held that payments of charges imposed on the holder of an electricity transmission licence were not tax deductible as they were outgoings of capital, or of a capital nature. The Court dismissed the appeal.

Orders