Attorney-General (Cth) v. Huynh & Ors
Case No.
S78/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
08/12/2021 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Bathurst CJ, Basten, Gleeson, Leeming & Payne JJA)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Judicial power – Post-appeal application for inquiry into conviction – State courts – Supervisory jurisdiction – Where s 68(1) of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) provided State laws with respect to procedures apply to persons charged with Commonwealth offences where jurisdiction conferred on courts of that State – Where s 68(2) conferred jurisdiction on State courts with respect to criminal proceedings – Where, following conviction for offences against laws of Commonwealth and unsuccessful appeal, Mr Huynh applied to NSW Supreme Court under Pt 7, Div 3 of Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) ("Appeal and Review Act") for review of conviction and sentence – Where NSW Supreme Court judge dismissed application and Mr Huynh sought judicial review of decision – Whether post-appeal inquiry and review procedures in Pt 7, Div 3 of Appeal and Review Act available in relation to conviction or sentence for Commonwealth offence heard in NSW court – Whether power exercised by judge under s 79 of Pt 7, Div 3 of Appeal and Review Act, to consider applications for inquiry into conviction made under s 78, judicial or administrative in nature – Whether ss 78-79 of Appeal and Review Act apply as federal law pursuant to s 68(1) of Judiciary Act in relation to conviction.
Documents*
12/05/2022 Determination (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
25/05/2022 Notice of appeal
30/06/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
30/06/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
02/08/2022 Written submissions (First Respondent)
09/09/2022 Written submissions (proposed amicus curiae)
27/09/2022 Written Reply to the amicus submissions (First Respondent)
07/10/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
20/10/2022 Reply
08/11/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
08/11/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
08/11/2022 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
08/11/2022 Outline of oral argument (Amici Curiae)
08/11/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
09/11/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/05/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Hore v The Queen; Wichen v The Queen
Date: 11 May 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 1 h 58 m
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.
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Tu'uta Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor
Date: 10 May 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 2 h 36 m
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.
TL v. The Queen
Case No.
S61/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
19/10/2020 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Hoeben CJ at CL, Adamson & Bellew JJ)
Catchwords
Evidence – Tendency evidence – Proof of identity – Where appellant convicted of murder of partner's child – Where blunt force trauma to abdomen cause of death – Where, 10 days prior, child had suffered burns after appellant placed child in hot water – Where evidence of burns was admitted as tendency evidence pursuant to s 97 of Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to prove appellant's tendency to "deliberately inflict physical harm on child" – Where appellant convicted and appealed against conviction on grounds including that tendency evidence should not have been admitted – Where appellant relied on statement in Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 388 concerning requirement for "close similarity" between tendency alleged and offence charged – Where Court of Criminal Appeal held requirement for "close similarity" should arise when tendency evidence is only or predominant evidence that goes to identity – Whether, where tendency evidence is adduced to prove identity of offender for known offence, probative value of tendency evidence will depend upon close similarity between conduct evidencing tendency and offence – Proper approach to principle articulated in Hughes.
Documents
13/04/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra and remote connection)
27/04/2022 Notice of appeal
01/06/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
01/06/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
29/06/2022 Written submissions (Respondent)
29/06/2022 Chronology (Respondent)
20/07/2022 Reply
17/08/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
16/08/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
17/08/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
19/10/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: O'Dea v The State of Western Australia
Date: 04 May 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 1 h 31m
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.