Procedure-facts Flashcards
Mahmood v Western Australia (No. 2) 2008 WASCA 259
Mahmood v Western Australia (No. 2) 2008 WASCA 259
The appellant was accused of murdered. The Appellant agreed to participate in a walkthrough which was taped. The prosecutor tendered part of the recording and invited the jury to draw a negative inference. But, in closing address made assertions that he was not showing emotion. At close of trial the defence counsel applied to reopen the case and tender the entirety of the tape.
SH v R (2012) 222 A Crim R 43
SH v R (2012) 222 A Crim R 43 The appellant (SH) appeals against his conviction for sexual intercourse with a girl aged under 10 years. His name has been anonymised, not for his own protection, but for the protection of the child.The principal witness for the prosecution was the complainant who alleged two incidents of digital penetration by the appellant between 4 August and 24 October 2007. She did not give sworn evidence, but gave evidence unsworn. That course is permitted, pursuant to the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), but only if particular statutory preconditions are satisfied. The appellant says that the judge failed to give a necessary instruction to the complainant, the result of which was not merely that her evidence was inadmissible, but that she was an incompetent witness.
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Dunn drafted a retainer letter for neighbours to sign. Browne responded by claiming that the letter was a sham. In cross-examination none of the witnesses were challenged about the authenticity of the signature but attempted to lead the argument in closing.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Air New Zealand Ltd (No.1) 207 FCR 448
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Air New Zealand Ltd (No.1) 207 FCR 448
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC) tendered three categories of documents relating to its conduct case against Air New Zealand Ltd and PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd,
Gregg v R (2020) NSWCCA 245
Gregg v R (2020) NSWCCA 245 Peter Gregg (the appellant) was the Chief Financial Officer of the company Leighton Holdings Limited (LHL). He was convicted of two offences contrary to s 1307(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), namely, that as an officer of LHL he engaged in conduct that resulted in the falsification of the books of the company. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months on count 1, and 2 years on count 2, to be served concurrently by way of an Intensive Correction Order. He appealed against both his conviction and sentence.
Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650
Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650
The Appellant was indicted in the district court of New South Wales on a charge that he robbed two bank officers of a sum of money which was property of thebank. A fact in issue on the trial of the appellant was whether he was the person depicted in some security photographs. Two police officers gave evidence at trial, over the objection of the appellant, that they had had previous dealings with the appellant and that they recognised the person depicted in the security photographs as the accused.
Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594
Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594
C told police that he had seen the appellant in the street and asked him to repay money he owed and that the appellant replied, “Don’t bother me I have just done job, fired two shots”. C signed a written statement containing this conversation. Prior to the appellant’s trial C told police that he was no longer willing to give evidence about the matter because he was being called a dog.
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49
ATO amended the returns of a company. Company required to produce documents and claimed privilege. Argued disclosed confidential communicaiton was for the dominant purpose of legal advice.
Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1
Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1
Appeal against finding by Full Federal Court that legal professional privilege had not been waived. Where government minister disclosed privileged documents to Member of Parliament.
Stanoevski v the Queen (2001) 202 CLR 115
Stanoevski v the Queen (2001) 202 CLR 115
The appellant had been in practice as a solicitor for a number of years. She was charged with conspiring with W and another to cheat and defraud an insurance company of a sum of money.
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
The husband of the plaintiff, Jones, had been killed in a traffic accident on theHume Highway. His truck had been found crashed on the side of the road, with the front of his cabin crushed in on the off-side. Found nearby that wreck was another truck, which had been driven by Hegedus, an employee of the Defendant Dunkel. Hegedus was not killed but was hurt. Hegedus’ truck was also badly damaged. Hegedus had given a written statement to a police officer while in hospital, however he did not testify at trial. The defendant’s counsel at the end of the plaintiff’s case announced that he would not call evidence.
Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 283
Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 283
The appellant was convicted in 1999 at the District Court of New South Wales for indecent assault of a 13-year-old girl occurring in 1988. The appellant was unsuccessful on appeal to the Supreme Court. On appeal to the High Court, the issues were whether:(a) the trial judge misdirected the jury on inferences to be drawn from failure of the appellant to call certain witnesses and the approach to be taken concerning the 5 year delay between the offence and the first complaint; (b) there was an unreasonable verdict; and (c) if the verdict was unreasonable should an acquittal be entered and if either misdirection point was made good should a retrial be dispensed with.
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588; [2011] HCA 21
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588; [2011] HCA 21
The respondent, Nawaf Hawchar, worked as a labourer, then as a stonemason, for the appellant, Dasreef Pty Ltd, between 1999 and 2005. Before he moved to Australia, Hawchar worked in his family’s stonemasonry business in Lebanon. While employed by Dasreef, he undertook some private stonemasonry work. In the course of his work, he was exposed to silica dust. In 2004, Hawchar was diagnosed with scleroderma and, in 2006, with silicosis. In October 2007, he commenced personal injury proceedings against Dasreef in the Dust Diseases Tribunal. At trial, Hawchar called opinion evidence from a chartered chemist and professional engineer and former academic, Dr Kenneth Basden.
IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14
IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14
After a trial in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, the appellant was found guilty of two counts of indecent dealing with a child and one count of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16 years. The complainant was the appellant’s step-granddaughter and alleged a course of sexual abuse from when she was 4 years old until she was 12 years old. The complainant’s was the only direct evidence of the commission of the offences. Over objection from the defence, the prosecution was permitted to adduce “tendency evidence” and “complaint evidence”. The tendency evidence was given by the complainant and was that while the complainant and another girl were giving the appellant a back massage, he ran his hand up the complainant’s leg. The trial judge admitted the evidence on the basis she considered that the evidence was capable of showing that the appellant had a sexual interest in the complainant. The trial judge ruled that the evidence had “significant probative value”. Section 97(1)(b) of the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT) (the Act) provided for evidence of this kind to be excepted from the “tendency rule”. The trial judge approached the task of assessing the probative value of the tendency evidence on the assumption that the jury would accept the evidence. The complaint evidence was evidence of complaints made by the complainant concerning the appellant and was given by a friend of the complainant, and the complainant’s aunt, grandmother and mother. The trial judge applied the exception to the hearsay rule, provided by s 66 of the Act, to this evidence. The appellant sought, unsuccessfully, to have the evidence excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act, on the ground that its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to him. The jury were directed that if they accepted the evidence of the complaints they could use the evidence of what was said in the complaints “as some evidence that an offence did occur”. The trial judge approached the question of the probative value of this evidence for the purposes of s 137 in the same way as she had for the purposes of s 97(1)(b). Her Honour assumed that the jury would accept the evidence and did not take into account factors such as credibility or reliability. Her Honour held that the evidence had probative value and did not create the prejudice. An appeal from the appellant’s conviction was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory.
Hughes v The Queen (2017) 344 ALR 187
Hughes v The Queen (2017) 344 ALR 187
In mid-February 2014, the appellant, Robert Hughes (Hughes), was arraigned in the District Court of New South Wales on an indictment charging him with eleven counts of sexual offences against five underage girls. Prior to trial, the prosecution served a notice of intention to adduce tendency evidence at trial. The tendency was identified as “having a sexual interest in female children under 16 years of age” and using “social and familial relationships … to obtain access to female children under 16 years of age so that he could engage in sexual activities with them”. The complainants were aged between six and 15 years at the dates of offending. The acts in each count and the circumstances in which they occurred varied. One of the particulars in the notice was that the conduct occurred in the vicinity of another adult.
