Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 25 August 2014 26 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2014] HCAB 06 (25 August 2014)

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
Pollentine v Bleijie	Constitutional Law
Fitzgerald v The Queen	Criminal Law
Honeysett v The Queen	Evidence
Versi v The Queen	Evidence

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Kentwell v The Queen; O’Grady v The Queen	Criminal Law
Maxwell v Highway Hauliers Pty Ltd	Insurance
Plaintiff S4/2014 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection	Migration
Alphapharm Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S & Ors	Patents
Cantarella Bros Pty Limited v Modena Trading Pty Limited	Trade Marks

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Ors v Queensland Rail and Anor	Constitutional Law
CPCF v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection and Anor	Constitutional Law

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Australian Communications and Media Authority v Today FM (Sydney) Pty Ltd	Administrative Law
Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Limited v William John Fletcher and Katherine Elizabeth Barnet as Liquidators of Octaviar Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) & Ors; JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association & Anor v William John Fletcher and Katherine Elizabeth Barnet as Liquidators of Octaviar Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) & Ors	Corporations Law
Korda and Ors v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Limited	Equity
Commissioner of State Revenue v Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd; Commissioner of State Revenue v Lend Lease Real Estate Investments Limited; Commissioner of State Revenue v Lend Lease IMT 2 (HP) Pty Ltd	Stamp Duty

5. Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

Case	Title
Plaintiff S89/2014 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor	Migration

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the August 2014 sittings.

Constitutional Law

Pollentine & Anor v Bleijie & Ors

B39/2013: [2014] HCA 30.

Judgment delivered: 14 August 2014.

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

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – Constitution, Ch III – Institutional integrity of State courts – Section 18(1) of Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 (Q) allowed trial judge to direct two or more medical practitioners to inquire as to mental condition of person found guilty of offence of sexual nature committed upon or in relation to child – Where medical practitioners report that offender is incapable of exercising proper control over offender's sexual instincts, s 18(3) allowed trial judge to declare offender to be so incapable and to direct offender to be detained in institution during Her Majesty's pleasure – Section 18(5) required offender to be…

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: [2014] HCAB 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pollentine and Bleijie were found guilty of committing sexual offences against children and were declared incapable of exercising proper control over their sexual instincts. They were detained in an institution at Her Majesty's pleasure. The plaintiffs argued that the relevant legislation was repugnant to or incompatible with the institutional integrity of state courts. The High Court held that the legislation was not repugnant to or incompatible with the institutional integrity of state courts. The court found that the legislation provided a framework for the protection of children and the community, and that the detention of the plaintiffs was a reasonable and proportionate response to their offending. The court also found that the legislation did not undermine the role of the judiciary in making decisions about the detention of offenders. Fitzgerald was charged with armed robbery and murder. The prosecution relied on DNA evidence to prove that Fitzgerald was present at the crime scene and participated in the crime. The defence argued that the DNA evidence was not sufficient to establish Fitzgerald's presence and participation beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court held that the DNA evidence was sufficient to establish Fitzgerald's presence and participation beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the DNA evidence showed that Fitzgerald's DNA was present on an object found at the crime scene, and that the presence of Fitzgerald's DNA was consistent with his participation in the crime. The court also found that the DNA evidence was reliable and that there was no reasonable doubt about Fitzgerald's presence and participation in the crime. Honeysett was charged with indecent assault. The prosecution adduced evidence of an anatomist regarding physical characteristics common to persons depicted in images. The defence argued that the opinion evidence was inadmissible because it was not based wholly or substantially on specialised knowledge. The High Court held that the opinion evidence was admissible because it was based wholly or substantially on specialised knowledge. The court found that the anatomist's opinion was based on his training, study and experience in anatomy, and that his opinion was relevant to the case. The court also found that the opinion evidence had significant probative value and was not outweighed by any prejudicial effect.

Orders