Vunilagi v The Queen

The appeal concerned Saimoni Vunilagi, Ismeli Vatanitawake, and Josefa Masivesi (the Appellants) against the Respondent, The Queen, following their convictions in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The Appellants challenged the reasonableness of the verdicts against them and argued that the trial judge had impermissibly introduced evidence into their reasoning. A further ground of appeal, raised by the intervenor, the Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory, concerned the constitutional validity of s 68BA of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT), which permitted trials by judge alone without the accused's consent.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the verdicts reached by the trial judge were unreasonable, and whether the trial judge's reasoning unfairly incorporated evidence. Additionally, the Court was required to determine if s 68BA of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT) was invalid. This involved considering whether the provision compromised the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court under the *Kable* doctrine, whether it exceeded the Legislative Assembly's power due to the implication of jury trials in s 48A of the *Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988* (Cth), and whether it was incompatible with s 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution.

The Court dismissed the grounds of appeal relating to the unreasonableness of the verdicts and the trial judge's reasoning, holding that the evidence was to be considered in its proper context. Regarding the constitutional challenge, the Court found that s 68BA of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT) was not invalid. The Court reasoned that the provision did not offend the *Kable* doctrine, did not exceed the Legislative Assembly's legislative power, and was not incompatible with s 80 of the Constitution. The Court's decision affirmed the validity of trials by judge alone in the ACT under the impugned provision.