Legal Research
Cases
Veen v The Queen (No 2)

Veen v The Queen (No 2)

Case [1988] HCA 1 8 January 1988

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mason C.J.

THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND ANOTHER v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND ANOTHER

8 January 1988

Decision

MASON C.J. The State of Queensland and its Attorney-General commenced an action in this Court seeking permanent injunctions against the Commonwealth and its Minister for the Environment and the Arts restraining them from taking certain steps in connection with the proposed listing with the World Heritage Committee ("the Committee") of an area in Queensland described as the Wet Tropical Rainforest of North East Queensland. On 24 December 1987 I refused the plaintiffs' application for interlocutory relief, indicating that I would publish my reasons for that decision at a later date.

2. The plaintiffs sought the following interlocutory injunctions:

(1) an order restraining the defendants from submitting to

the Committee a proposal that the area is suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List referred to in Art. 11 of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage ("the Convention") or from taking any steps to prosecute, support, pursue or promote such a submission;

(2) an order restraining the defendants from taking any

steps to procure the making of a regulation pursuant to the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) ("the Act") declaring that the area or any part of it forms part of the cultural or natural heritage; and

(3) an order restraining the defendants from taking any

steps to procure the making of a proclamation pursuant to s.6(3) or s.7 of the Act in respect of the area or any part of it.

3. The defendants admitted that they were seeking to have the area entered by the Committee in the World Heritage List. Indeed, the Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth, who appeared for the defendants, stated that Australia had on 18 December 1987 lodged with the Committee a submission that the area should be entered in the List, but this submission was not in the prescribed form. The Solicitor-General further stated that a formal submission in the prescribed form had then been prepared and was to be lodged with the Committee shortly thereafter and certainly by 1 January 1988 so that it could be considered by the Committee in the course of 1988 and determined not earlier than December 1988. Under the Operational Guidelines adopted by the Committee, if the nomination were delayed beyond 1 January 1988, it would not be processed and considered until 1989, the process culminating in a final decision in December 1989.

4. The defendant Minister made it known in at least one media release that activities, including logging, which are incompatible with the "outstanding values" of the area, whatever that expression may mean, will not be permitted. The plaintiffs took this to mean that the defendants intended to make a regulation under s.3(2)(a)(ii) of the Act declaring the area to form part of the natural heritage and/or make proclamations under s.6(3) or s.7 of the Act. The defendants did not contest that they proposed or contemplated…

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.

Continue reading Veen v The Queen (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Queensland v Commonwealth [1988] HCA 1
Case: [1988] HCA 1
Decision Date: 8 January 1988

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Veen v The Queen (No 2)*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Veen, against his conviction for murder and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The case concerned the principles governing the imposition of a life sentence for murder, particularly where the offender had a history of similar violent offending.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in imposing a life sentence. Specifically, the court had to determine the circumstances in which a life sentence is an appropriate punishment for murder, and whether the applicant's prior convictions for similar offences were a relevant and determinative factor in that assessment. The court also considered the role of deterrence and retribution in sentencing for such serious crimes.

The High Court, in a joint judgment delivered by Mason C.J., affirmed the principles established in *Veen v The Queen (No 1)*. The court held that a life sentence is justified where the crime is of such gravity that the protection of the public requires a sentence of imprisonment for life, or where the offender's past conduct and the nature of the offence indicate that he is a continuing danger to the community. The court found that the applicant's history of violent offending, including a previous conviction for murder, demonstrated a persistent propensity for extreme violence, making him a continuing threat to the public. Consequently, the imposition of a life sentence was deemed appropriate and necessary for the protection of society.

Orders