Hore v. The Queen, Wichen v. The Queen
Case No.
A5/2022; A6/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
07/05/2021 Supreme Court of South Australia (Kelly P, Lovell and Bleby JJ)
07/05/2021 Supreme Court of South Australia (Kelly P, Lovell and Bleby JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Sentence – Sentencing Orders – Offenders incapable of controlling, or unwilling to control, sexual instincts – Meaning of "willing" – Where appellants detained by Court order, following application by Crown, on grounds they were incapable or unwilling to control sexual instincts – Where s 59(1a)(a) of Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) provided person detained cannot be released unless Court satisfied person "capable of controlling and willing to control" person's sexual instincts – Where s 57, providing authority for Court to make order for indefinite detention, contained definition of "unwilling" – Where Court of Appeal held "willing" in s 59(1a)(a) had converse meaning to defined term "unwilling" in s 57(1) such that appellants could only be regarded as willing to control sexual instincts if established no significant risk they would, given opportunity to commit relevant offence, fail to exercise appropriate control of sexual instincts – Whether meaning of "willing" in s 59(1a)(a) is converse of word "unwilling" as defined in s 57 – Proper meaning of term "willing" in s 59(1a)(a).
Documents*
21/02/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
04/03/2022 Notices of appeal
01/04/2022 Written submissions (Appellant A5/2022)
01/04/2022 Chronology (Appellant A5/2022)
01/04/2022 Written submissions (Appellant A6/2022)
01/04/2022 Chronology (Appellant A6/2022)
20/04/2022 Written submissions (Respondent A5/2022)
20/04/2022 Written submissions (Respondent A6/2022)
26/04/2022 Reply (Appellant A5/2022)
26/04/2022 Reply (Appellant A6/2022)
11/05/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/05/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellants - joint)
10/05/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
15/06/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: ALEXANDER v MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS & ANOR
Date: 16 Feburary 2022 , 17 Feburary 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 31m, 4h 28m,
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
16 Feburary 2022
17 Feburary 2022
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:Farm Transparency International Ltd & Anor v State of New South Wales
Date: 10 Feburary 2022 , 11 Feburary 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 5m, 2h 39m,
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
10 Feburary 2022
11 Feburary 2022
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: Citta Hobart PTY LTD & Anor v Cawthorn
Date: 08 Feburary 2022 , 09 Feburary 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 34m, 3h 49m,
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
08 Feburary 2022
09 Feburary 2022
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.
Dansie v. The Queen
Case No.
A4/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
02/11/2020 Supreme Court of South Australia (Nicholson, Parker and Livesey JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Murder – Unreasonable verdict – Verdict unsupported by evidence – Where appellant's wife drowned after her wheelchair entered pond – Where prosecution alleged intentional drowning – Where, on defence case, drowning accidental – Where s 158(1)(a) of Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) provided for appeal to be allowed where Court considers verdict should be set aside on ground that conviction unreasonable or cannot be supporting having regard to evidence – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal failed to conduct independent assessment of whole of evidence – Whether open to trial judge to exclude hypothesis of accidental drowning – Proper approach by intermediate appellate court to "unreasonable verdict" limb of common form appeal provision following judge-alone trial.
Documents*
18/02/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
04/03/2022 Notice of appeal
08/04/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/04/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
06/05/2022 Written submissions (Respondent)
24/05/2022 Reply
15/06/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
15/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
14/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
10/08/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)