Baker v. The Queen
Case No.
M154/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
9/09/2010 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Maxwell P, Buchanan JA, Bongiorno J)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Evidence — Hearsay — Admissions — Applicant, along with co-accused at trial, LM, involved in altercation following which one Mr Snowball fell through glass window to street below and died — Applicant found guilty of murder of Mr Snowball — LM acquitted — Witnesses gave competing versions of events leading to death of Mr Snowball — Version implicating applicant as person who pushed or punched Mr Snowball in manner resulting in his fall was preferred by jury — In case against LM, Crown relied on evidence of admissions made by LM that suggested he was responsible for Mr Snowball's fall — Trial judge directed jury that case against each accused was to be assessed only in light of evidence applicable to each accused, meaning evidence of LM's admissions not evidence in case against applicant — Whether evidence of LM's admissions was admissible in exculpation of applicant — Whether potential exception to hearsay considered in Bannon v The Queen (1995) 185 CLR 1 ought to be recognised and whether LM's admissions within scope of any such exception — Whether applicant's trial miscarried and jury's verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory by reason of exclusion of LM's admissions.
Documents
28/10/2011 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
11/11/2011 Notice of appeal
25/11/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
25/11/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
19/12/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
28/02/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
15/08/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
The Queen v. Khazaal
Case No.
S344/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
9/06/2011 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal)
(McClellan CJatCL, Hall J, McCallum J)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Terrorism — Collecting or making documents likely to facilitate terrorist acts — Section 101.5(1) of Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) ("Code") makes an offence the collection or making of a document connected with preparation for, engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act, where that person knows of the connection — Section 101.5(5) of Code creates defence if collection or making of document not intended to facilitate preparation for, engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act — Defendant bears evidential burden of proof under s 101.5(5), as defined in s 13.3(6) of Code — Respondent found guilty of offence of making document connected with terrorist act knowing of that connection contrary to s 101.5(1) of Code — Whether respondent discharged evidential burden under s 101.5(5) of Code, having regard to s 13.3(6) of Code — Whether evidence at trial suggested reasonable possibility that making of document by respondent not intended to facilitate assistance in terrorist act so as to engage defence in s 101.5(5) of Code.
Words and phrases — "assistance in a terrorist act", "connected with", "evidential burden".
Documents
07/10/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
19/10/2011 Notice of appeal
04/11/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
04/11/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
25/11/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
02/12/2011 Reply
27/02/2012 Summons seeking leave to intervene (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
02/03/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
10/08/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
P. T. Garuda Indonesia Ltd v. Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
Case No.
S343/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
19/04/2011 Federal Court of Australia (Lander J, Greenwood J, Rares J)
Catchwords
Public international law — Jurisdiction — Sovereign immunity — Section 11(1) of Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) ("Act") provides that a foreign State is not immune in a proceeding that concerns a "commercial transaction" — Respondent commenced proceedings against applicant alleging anti-competitive conduct in relation to international air freight contrary to Pt IV of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) — Applicant a "separate entity" of Republic of Indonesia, as defined in s 22 of Act — Respondent alleges applicant participated in conduct outside Australia amounting to arrangements or understandings with other carriers concerning fuel surcharges — Whether civil penalty proceeding brought by respondent against an entity otherwise entitled to sovereign immunity falls within "commercial transaction" exception in Act — Whether applicant immune under Act from exercise of jurisdiction.
Words and phrases — "commercial transaction", "concern".
Documents
07/10/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
18/10/2011 Notice of appeal
04/11/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
04/11/2011 Chronology
25/11/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
02/12/2011 Reply
08/05/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
16/05/2012 Supplementary submissions (Appellant)
23/05/2012 Supplementary submissions (Respondent)
07/09/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (ACN 002 594 872) v. Australian Securities and Investments Commission and Anor
Case No.
P45/2011
Related matter
P44/2011 – Forrest v. Australian Securities and Investments Commission & Anor
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/02/2010 Federal Court of Australia (Keane CJ, Emmett J, Finkelstein J)
Catchwords
Corporations law — Continuous disclosure — Misleading and deceptive conduct — Fortescue Metals Group Ltd ("FMG") entered into framework agreements with three Chinese entities — Forrest the Chairman and CEO of FMG — FMG made public announcements that FMG and Chinese entities had executed binding agreements to build, finance and transfer infrastructure for mining project in Pilbara region — Whether, in making announcements, FMG contravened ss 674(2) and 1041H of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ("Act"), and Forrest contravened ss 180(1) and 674(2) of Act — Whether announcements made by FMG misleading or deceptive or likely to be misleading or deceptive in contravention of s 1041H of Act or s 52 of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) — Whether announcements would have been understood by reasonable person as statement of FMG's honest, or honest and reasonable, belief as to terms and effect of framework agreements rather than statements that warranted or guaranteed their truth — Whether FMG and Forrest honestly, or honestly and reasonably, believed framework agreements effective as binding contracts — Whether FMG and Forrest contravened s 674(2) of Act because neither had "information" that framework agreements unenforceable at law — Whether, if announcements by FMG misleading or deceptive or likely to be misleading or deceptive, Forrest contravened s 180(1) of Act — Whether s 180(1) of Act provides for civil liability of directors for contraventions of other provisions of Act — Whether
s 180(2) of Act available as defence to alleged contravention of
s 180(1) if proceedings based on contravention of provisions containing exculpatory provisions — Whether s 180(2) of Act applies to decisions concerning compliance with Act.
Contracts — Agreements contemplating existence of fuller contracts — Certainty — Whether framework agreements contained binding core obligations on Chinese entities in respect of Pilbara project — Whether framework agreements uncertain as to subject matter — Whether inclusion of terms making price determinable by third party rendered framework agreements uncertain.
Documents
29/09/2011 Hearing (SLA, Adelaide)
13/10/2011 Notice of appeal
27/10/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
27/10/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
17/11/2011 Written submissions (First Respondent)
17/11/2011 Written submissions (Second Respondent)
24/11/2011 Reply
01/12/2011 Reply to Notice of Contention and Cross Appeal (First Respondent)
29/02/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
01/03/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
30/03/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
02/10/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Forrest v. Australian Securities and Investments Commission and Anor
Case No.
P44/2011
Related matter:
P45/2011 – Fortescue Metals Group Ltd v. Australian Securities and Investments Commission & Anor
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/02/2011 Federal Court of Australia (Keane CJ, Emmett J, Finkelstein J)
Catchwords
Corporations law — Continuous disclosure — Misleading and deceptive conduct — Fortescue Metals Group Ltd ("FMG") entered into framework agreements with three Chinese entities — Forrest the Chairman and CEO of FMG — FMG made public announcements that FMG and Chinese entities had executed binding agreements to build, finance and transfer infrastructure for mining project in Pilbara region — Whether, in making announcements, FMG contravened ss 674(2) and 1041H of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ("Act"), and Forrest contravened ss 180(1) and 674(2) of Act — Whether announcements made by FMG misleading or deceptive or likely to be misleading or deceptive in contravention of s 1041H of Act or s 52 of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) — Whether announcements would have been understood by reasonable person as statement of FMG's honest, or honest and reasonable, belief as to terms and effect of framework agreements rather than statements that warranted or guaranteed their truth — Whether FMG and Forrest honestly, or honestly and reasonably, believed framework agreements effective as binding contracts — Whether FMG and Forrest contravened s 674(2) of Act because neither had "information" that framework agreements unenforceable at law — Whether, if announcements by FMG misleading or deceptive or likely to be misleading or deceptive, Forrest contravened s 180(1) of Act — Whether s 180(1) of Act provides for civil liability of directors for contraventions of other provisions of Act — Whether
s 180(2) of Act available as defence to alleged contravention of
s 180(1) if proceedings based on contravention of provisions containing exculpatory provisions — Whether s 180(2) of Act applies to decisions concerning compliance with Act.
Contracts — Agreements contemplating existence of fuller contracts — Certainty — Whether framework agreements contained binding core obligations on Chinese entities in respect of Pilbara project — Whether framework agreements uncertain as to subject matter — Whether inclusion of terms making price determinable by third party rendered framework agreements uncertain.
Documents
29/09/2011 Hearing (SLA, Adelaide)
13/10/2011 Notice of appeal
27/10/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
27/10/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
17/11/2011 Written submissions (First Respondent)
17/11/2011 Written submissions (Second Respondent)
24/11/2011 Reply
29/02/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
01/03/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
30/03/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
02/10/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)