KMD v. CEO (Department of Health NT) & Ors
Case No.
Case no D2/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/07/2024 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Blokland, Reeves & Burns JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – mental impairment – supervision orders – where appellant found not guilty by reason of mental impairment of eight offences and subject to custodial supervision order under s 43X(2) of Criminal Code (NT) – where such order required first respondent to submit to Court report on treatment or management of supervised person’s impairment and Court may conduct review to determine whether person may be released from custodial supervision order – where on completion of review s 43ZH(2) Criminal Code required Court to vary order to non-custodial supervision order unless satisfied on the evidence that safety of supervised person or public will be seriously at risk if person released on non-custodial supervision order – where primary judge made non-custodial supervision order – where majority of Court of Criminal Appeal found not reasonably open to primary judge to find safety of public not seriously at risk if appellant placed on non-custodial supervision order – proper standard of appellate review to be applied – whether majority in finding correctness standard rather than House v King standard applied – whether majority erred in ordering custodial supervision order be confirmed without providing appellant with further hearing or opportunity to adduce evidence relevant to risk based on time she spent in community following primary judge’s decision in circumstances where conduct of appeal gave rise to reasonable expectation that if CCA found error she would be afforded further hearing – whether majority erred in ordering custodial supervision order without any evidence relevant to risk arising from appellant’s time in community – whether majority erred in holding primary judge’s periodic review miscarried because appellant refused to engage with one of persons who prepared report under s 43ZN(2)(a) of Criminal Code.
Documents
10/10/2024 Determination
24/10/2024 Notice of appeal
21/11/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
21/11/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
19/12/2024 Written submissions (First Respondent)
14/01/2025 Reply (not publicly available)
11/02/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Transcript and AV Recording will not be published)
11/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
27/02/2025 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Cherry v. State of Queensland
Case No.
Case no B11/2024
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – separation of powers – judicial power – where plaintiff convicted of two counts of murder in 2002 and sentenced to life imprisonment with mandatory minimum non-parole period of 20 years – where body of second victim never located – where in 2021 new provisions inserted into Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) (“CSA”) to amend “no body-no parole” scheme and introducing new “restricted prisoners” regime – where President of Parole Board of Queensland may make “no co-operation” declaration under s 175L of CSA in respect of a “no body – no parole” prisoner where remains of victim not found and where Board not satisfied prisoner has given “satisfactory co-operation” – where effect of declaration is that prisoner may not apply for parole notwithstanding parole eligibility date set by sentencing judge – where under s 175E of CSA President of Parole Board can make declaration about restricted prisoner (relevantly defined as prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment for more than one conviction of murder) – where effect of declaration is that prisoner may not apply for parole other than in “exceptional circumstances parole” under s 1767 – where plaintiff subject to “no co-operation” declaration and liable for “restricted prisoner” declaration if former lapses – validity of provisions under Ch 5, Divs 1 and 2 CSA – whether ss 175L and 175E CSA invalid as enabling Queensland executive to impermissibly interfere with exercise of judicial power by State Courts contrary to principle established in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (1996) 189 CLR 51.
Documents*
04/03/2024 Writ of summons
23/09/2024 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane by video connection)
27/09/2024 Order referring special case to the Full Court
04/10/2024 Special case stated
21/10/2024 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
22/11/2024 Written submissions (Defendant)
06/12/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales, intervening)
06/12/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening)
06/12/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Northern Territory, intervening)
06/12/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia, intervening)
06/12/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Victoria, intervening)
24/01/2025 Reply
04/02/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
04/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)
04/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Defendant)
04/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales, intervening)
04/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening)
04/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the Northern Territory, intervening)
04/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia, intervening)
04/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria, intervening)
09/04/2025 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Pearson v Commonwealth; JZQQ v MICMA; Tapiki v MICMA and related matters [2024] HCATrans 68 - first day
Date: 09 October 2024
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 35m
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
Terms of use
Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:
(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court. However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.
(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.
(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.
By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.
DZY (a pseudonym) v. Trustees of the Christian Brothers
Case No.
M81/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/04/2024 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Beach, Macaulay and Lyons JJA)
Catchwords
Civil procedure – limitation of actions – application to set aside deeds of settlement under s 27QE of Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) – where appellant entered into two deeds of settlement relating to sexual abuse alleged against Christian Brothers in school run by respondent – where appellant later commenced proceedings seeking damages from respondent for economic loss caused by abuse – where respondent claimed settlements should not be set aside because it would have pleaded limitation defence and “Ellis” defence that unincorporated association not solvent legal entity capable of being sued (Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church v Ellis (2007) 70 NSWLR 565) – where primary judge allowed claim to proceed – where Court of Appeal set aside primary judge’s decision – whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in finding power in s 27QE Limitation of Actions Act not enlivened unless claimant establishes that limitation or Ellis defence had material impact on or was leading factor in decision to settle – whether Court of Appeal misapplied correctness standard of appellate review in Warren v Coombs (1979) 142 CLR 531.
Documents*
05/09/2024 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
19/09/2024 Notice of appeal
24/10/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
24/10/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
21/11/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
12/12/2024 Reply
13/02/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
13/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
09/04/2025 Judgment (Judgment summary)
La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council ABN 89136607167 & Anor v. Quarry Street Pty Ltd ACN 616184117 & Anor
Case No.
S121/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
10/05/2024 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (White, Adamson, Stern JJA)
Catchwords
Land law – indigenous land rights – Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW), s 36 – claimable Crown land – where second respondent Minister proved in part an Aboriginal land claim in relation to Crown Land in Paddington – where first respondent lessee of site described as “Paddington Bowling Club” but site fallen into disuse other than “oral sublease” over small portion of land – where land subject to reservation of Crown land under s 87 Crown Lands Act 1989 (NSW) for use as community and sporting club facilities and tourist facilities and services – where first respondent unsuccessfully sought judicial review of Minister’s decision to approve claim – where Court of Appeal allowed appeal – where Court of Appeal found land being “used” for purposes of s 36(1) of Aboriginal Land Rights Act such that land was not “claimable Crown land” – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding Minister required to find land was “claimable Crown land” – whether concept of “use” in s 36(1)(b) requires examination of activities on claimed land as opposed to away from or in relation to claimed land – whether definition of “land” in s 4(1) has result that “use” of “any estate or interest” in respect of land either individually or cumulatively will satisfy s 36(1)(b) – whether leasing of land by Crown a “use” within s 36()(b).
Documents
05/09/2024 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
19/09/2024 Notice of appeal
24/10/2024 Written submissions (Appellants)
24/10/2024 Chronology (Appellants)
21/11/2024 Written submissions (First Respondent)
02/12/2024 Written submissions (Second Respondent)
06/12/2024 Reply (First Respondent)
12/12/2024 Reply (Appellants)
13/03/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/03/2025 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
13/03/2025 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
13/03/2025 Outline of oral argument (Second Respondent)