Orreal v. The Queen
Case No.
B25/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
08/05/2020 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (McMurdo and Mullins JJA, Bond J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Application of proviso – Substantial miscarriage of justice – Prejudicial evidence – Where applicant charged with sexual offending against child – Where, at trial, irrelevant, inadmissible and prejudicial medical evidence placed before jury – Where prosecution, in summing up, contended evidence could be of some use to jury – Where trial judge did not direct jury to disregard inadmissible evidence and directed jury could use evidence – Where applicant unsuccessfully appealed to Court of Appeal – Where majority of Court of Appeal held, despite reception of inadmissible and prejudicial evidence, no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred – Whether, in cases turning on issues of contested credibility, appropriate for intermediate Court of Appeal to make own assessment of admissible evidence for purpose of determining whether no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred.
Documents*
16/04/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
28/04/2021 Notice of appeal
04/06/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
04/06/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
02/07/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
21/07/2021 Reply
11/11/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/11/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
11/11/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
16/12/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Park v. The Queen
Case No.
S61/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
06/05/2020 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Bathurst CJ, R A Hulme & Fullerton JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Sentencing – Guilty plea reduction - Where s 22(1) of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) provides that, in passing sentence on offender who has pleaded guilty to offence, court may impose lesser penalty “than it would otherwise have imposed” – Where applicant pleaded guilty to offence – Where offence has 5 year maximum penalty but jurisdictional limit of 2 years applies when dealt with summarily by District Court – Where primary judge would have imposed sentence of 2 years 8 months for offence and applied 25 per cent reduction to sentence pursuant to s 22(1) – Where applicant sentenced to 2 years imprisonment – Where applicant appealed to Court of Criminal Appeal on basis reduction should have been applied to 2 years (jurisdictional limit applied to appropriate sentence) instead of 2 years 8 months (appropriate sentence before jurisdictional limit applied) - Where Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed appeal and held “would otherwise have imposed” refers to appropriate sentence despite jurisdictional limit, and jurisdictional limit only relevant if sentence post-reduction exceeds jurisdictional limit – Correct construction of “would otherwise have imposed” – Whether reduction of sentence applies to sentence appropriate to judicial officer but beyond jurisdictional limit or to sentence court would actually have imposed if no guilty plea.
Documents*
16/04/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
27/04/2021 Notice of appeal
04/06/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
04/06/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
31/08/2021 Written submissions - amended (Respondent)
23/07/2021 Reply
02/09/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra by video connection)
02/09/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
02/09/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
09/09/2021 Supplementary written submissions (Appellant)
16/09/2021 Supplementary written submissions (Respondent)
10/11/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Wells Fargo Trust Company, National Association (as owner trustee) & Anor v. VB Leaseco Pty Ltd (administrators appointed) & Ors
Case No.
S60/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
07/10/2020 Federal Court of Australia (McKerracher, Colvin & O’Callaghan JJ)
Catchwords
Aviation – Construction of art XI Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment (Protocol) – Where International Interest in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Act 2013 (Cth) gives domestic effect to Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) – Where art XI(2) of Protocol provides upon occurrence of insolvency-related event, insolvency administrator or debtor shall “give possession of the aircraft object” to creditor – Where applicants owners of aircraft engines leased to first respondent and subleased to second and fourth respondents – Where third respondent appointed administrator of other respondents following insolvency-related event – Where lease imposes on lessees return obligations in respect of aircraft – Where applicants sought compliance with respondents’ Art XI(2) obligations to “give possession” – Where third respondent, instead of physically redelivering engines, issued a notice under s 443B(3) of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) disclaiming leased engines and leaving engines still attached to aircraft operated by lessees and owned by third parties – Where primary judge held respondents failed to “give possession” of engines – Where respondents successfully appealed to Full Court Federal Court – Whether “give possession” means physical delivery of aircraft objects or merely enables creditor to exercise self-help remedy – Whether respondents failed to “give possession”.
Documents*
12/04/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
26/04/2021 Notice of appeal
31/05/2021 Written submissions (Appellants)
31/05/2021 Chronology (Appellants)
28/06/2021 Written submissions (Respondents)
19/07/2021 Reply
28/10/2021 Amended Chronology (Appellants)
29/10/2021 Amended Reply
04/11/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
04/11/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
04/11/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
16/03/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
NSW Commissioner of Police v. Cottle & Anor
Case No.
S56/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
27/07/2020 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Bell P, Basten and Payne JJA)
Catchwords
Industrial law – Jurisdiction of Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (IRC) – Police – Where applicant made decision under s 72A of Police Act 1990 (NSW) to retire first respondent police officer on medical grounds – Where first respondent applied for unfair dismissal remedy in IRC under s 84 of Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) – Where Police Act does not expressly provide for review by IRC for medical retirement but does for other types of removal – Where applicant successfully challenged IRC’s jurisdiction, following High Court’s decision in Commissioner for Police for NSW v Eaton (2013) 252 CLR 1 – Where Full Bench overturned decision – Where applicant successfully sought judicial review of Full Bench decision by NSW Supreme Court – Where first respondent successfully appealed to Court of Appeal – Whether IRC has jurisdiction to hear and determine unfair dismissal application filed by police office retired on medical grounds – Whether Court of Appeal applied correct statutory construction principles in interpreting two overlapping statutory schemes.
Documents
12/04/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
23/04/2021 Notice of appeal
31/05/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
31/05/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
30/06/2021 Written submissions (First Respondent)
13/07/2021 Written submissions (Police Association of New South Wales, seeking leave to intervene)
20/07/2021 Reply
03/11/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
03/11/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
03/11/2021 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
16/03/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Remarks to Farewell the Honourable Justice Virginia Bell AC as a Justice of the High Court of Australia
Date: 10 Feb 2021
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 0h 2m
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.