Category Archives: !! Part 3.02

Woods (a Pseudonym) v The Queen [2014] VSCA 233 (26 September 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2014/233.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Sexual offending – Father and daughter – Incest – Whether evidence of two separate incidents – Sufficiency of directions – Defence case that complainant had a motive to lie – Whether prosecutor’s response in addressing jury suggested they should accept complainant unless it likely she was lying – Statement by prosecutor in address as to what is ‘usual’ in these cases – No miscarriage.

Onesteel Reinforcing Pty Ltd v Sutton [2012] NSWCA 282 (28 August 2012)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2012/282.html

WORKERS COMPENSATION – Workers Compensation Commission – Arbitrator’s decision – appeal to Presidential Member – error of law – whether no evidence to support finding that respondent injured while working for appellant – whether arbitrator answered wrong question in situation where possibility injury occurred at two workplaces

WORKERS COMPENSATION – procedure – s 354 Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 – procedures before Commission not governed by rules of evidence – arbitrator required to draw conclusions from material that is satisfactory in probative sense – where respondent’s credit impugned – whether arbitrator entitled to rely on expert reports where medical history respondent gave experts differed from evidence accepted by arbitrator

WORKERS COMPENSATION – procedure – procedures before Commission not governed by rules of evidence – Workers Compensation Commission Rules -evidence required to be logical and probative, relevant to facts in issue and issues in dispute, not based on speculation or unsubstantiated assumptions, not in form of unqualified opinions – not a reintroduction of rules of evidence

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – s 354 Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 – procedures before Commission not governed by rules of evidence – Workers Compensation Commission Rules – evidence required to be logical and probative, relevant to facts in issue and issues in dispute, not based on speculation or unsubstantiated assumptions, not in form of unqualified opinions – rules not to be construed in manner inconsistent with statute

R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 2 (31 January 2012)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/act/ACTCA/2012/2.html

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – in general and right of appeal – leave to appeal out of time – principles on which leave should be granted – explanation for delay – whether miscarriage of justice – leave refused.

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – practice and procedure – when time for appeal begins to run in criminal matters – Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) Div 5.4.7 – meaning of conviction.

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – practice and procedure – cross appeal – whether conviction appeal can be cross-appeal against sentence appeal – need for fresh appeal.

Regina v Lawrence Holt [2001] NSWSC 232 (30 March 2001)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2001/232.html

8 The foregoing general positions of, respectively, the Crown and the accused having been established, application was made for a series of hearings on the voir dire to the end of testing the admissibility in the Crown case at trial of various pieces of evidence. Voir dire hearings were granted accordingly, and all of them were dealt with by way of documentary evidence. In all, sixteen separate such hearings were conducted. Eleven of those hearings concerned evidence which the Crown seeks to have admitted as tendency evidence; a further four hearings concerned hearsay evidence which the Crown seeks to have admitted as relationship evidence; and one hearing concerned admissions made by the accused to investigating police.

R v Bauer [2011] ACTSC 127 (16 August 2011)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/act/ACTSC/2011/127.html

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – assault – damage to property – discrepancies between evidence of complainants – identification evidence not reliable to establish accused’s involvement – prosecution evidence did not exclude alibi raised – reasonable doubt as to accused’s presence at the relevant occasions and times of the alleged incident – accused not guilty on all charges.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), Pt 3.2, ss 65(1), 65(3), 116(1)(a), 116(1) (b), 165(1) (b), 190

Re Ronald George Gordon Ex Parte: Official Trustee In Bankruptcy v Prudence Alice Pike [1995] FCA 1514 (1 September 1995)

[1995] FCA 1514

Evidence –  Evidence Act 1995  – material admissible as “first hand” hearsay – whether general discretion to exclude evidence because its probative value is outweighted by the danger it might be unfairly prejudicial should be exercised – prejudice likely to be suffered by reason of admission of evidence not “unfair”.

Evidence Act 1995 , s135, Division 2 of Part 3.2

Anthony Gordon Oates v The Honourable Daryl Williams QC in his capacity as Attorney-General & Anor [1998] FCA 136 (27 February 1998)

 [1998] FCA 136

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Consent by Minister to institution of criminal proceedings under Corporations Law – proceedings instituted more than five years after alleged criminal conduct – whether Minister failed to take into account relevant considerations – whether Minister obliged to give person who might be charged an opportunity to be heard before decision made whether to consent.

Corporations Law s 1316

Evidence Act 1995  (Cth) Part 3.2, s 67, s 190(3)