HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FRENCH CJ,
CRENNAN, KIEFEL, BELL AND GAGELER JJTING LI APPELLANT
AND
CHIEF OF ARMY RESPONDENT
Li v Chief of Army
[2013] HCA 49
27 November 2013
S162/2013
ORDER
1.Appeal allowed with costs.
2.Set aside the order of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia made on 26 February 2013 and, in its place, order that:
(a) the appeal to that Court be allowed;
(b)the appellant's conviction be quashed and the sentence imposed on 8 April 2011 be set aside; and
(c)the matter be remitted to the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal for the making of further orders, if any.
3.Set aside the order of the Full Court of the Federal Court made on 19 April 2013 and, in its place, order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to that Court, including the costs of submissions concerning the issue of costs.
On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia
Representation
A W Street SC with A K Flecknoe-Brown for the appellant (instructed by Wyatt Attorneys)
S B Lloyd SC with S G Callan for the respondent (instructed by Clayton Utz)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
Li v Chief of Army
Defence – Military forces – Discipline – Service offences – Offence of creating a disturbance on service land – Meaning of "disturbance" – Physical and fault elements of "creating" a disturbance – Whether violence or threat of violence necessary to existence of "disturbance" – Whether "creating" a disturbance has one or two physical elements.
Words and phrases – "creating a disturbance", "disturbance".
Criminal Code (Cth), Ch 2.
Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth), s 33(b).
Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955 (Cth).
FRENCH CJ, CRENNAN, KIEFEL, BELL AND GAGELER JJ.
Introduction
Major Ting Li, a member of the Australian Defence Force ("the ADF"), was involved one morning in an incident in the Campbell Park Offices in the Australian Capital Territory. He was subsequently charged before a restricted court martial constituted under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) ("the DFDA") with the service offence of having created a disturbance on service land contrary to s 33(b) of the DFDA and, in the alternative, with the service offence of having acted in a manner likely to bring discredit on the ADF contrary to s 60(1) of the DFDA.
The particulars of each charge were identical. They were that Major Li, after entering the office of Mr Snashall, a Commonwealth public servant: refused to leave that office when Mr Snashall requested him to do so; continued speaking to Mr Snashall in a raised voice; followed Mr Snashall and continued the conversation when Mr Snashall walked out of that office; forcefully pushed against the office door placing his head and shoulder in the doorway when Mr Snashall had returned to the office and was inside the office trying to…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Li v Chief of Army 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] HCA 49
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the judge advocate at the court martial had misdirected the tribunal on a critical element of the offence, and whether this misdirection gave rise to a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court was required to consider the meaning of "creating a disturbance" and the fault elements associated with it, particularly whether violence or a threat of violence was a necessary component of a "disturbance" and whether "creating" a disturbance involved one or two physical elements.
The High Court found that the judge advocate's direction to the court martial had indeed involved a material error of law by treating a critical fault element – recklessness as to the result of intentional acts – as irrelevant. The Court held that the language of the "substantial miscarriage of justice" provision in the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955 (Cth) did not require the same stringent approach as the common law criminal proviso. It was sufficient that there was a real risk that the court martial's finding of guilt was influenced by the misdirection. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed Major Li's conviction, and remitted the matter to the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal for further orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed with costs.
2. Set aside the order of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia made on 26 February 2013 and, in its place, order that:
(a) the appeal to that Court be allowed;
(b) the appellant's conviction be quashed and the sentence imposed on 8 April 2011 be set aside; and
(c) the matter be remitted to the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal for the making of further orders, if any.
3. Set aside the order of the Full Court of the Federal Court made on 19 April 2013 and, in its place, order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to that Court, including the costs of submissions concerning the issue of costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by:
Full text does not contain this section.