Lowe v R [1984] HCA 46 | 2 August 1984

ON 2 AUGUST 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Lowe v R [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606 (2 August 1984).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/46.html

The case sets out the principle of due proportionality to be imposed by Australian courts when sentencing criminal offenders.

Whilst co-offenders do not have to receive the same sentence for the same offence, any discrepancy must not give the sense or appearance of their being an injustice done to the offender with the heavier sentence.

At 623, Dawson J (with whom WIlson J agreed) said:

“There is no rule of law which requires co-offenders to be given the same sentence for the same offence even if no distinction can be drawn between them. Obviously where the circumstances of each offender or his involvement in the offence are different then different sentences may be called for but justice should be even-handed and it has come to be recognised both here and in England that any difference between the sentences imposed upon co-offenders for the same offence ought not to be such as to give rise to a justifiable sense of a grievance on the part of the offender with the heavier sentence or to give the appearance that justice has not been done.”

The principle is an application of the fundamental principle of equality of justice. At 610, Mason J observed:

“Just as consistency in punishment — a reflection of the notion of equal justice — is a fundamental element in any rational and fair system of criminal justice, so inconsistency in punishment, because it is regarded as a badge of unfairness and unequal treatment under the law, is calculated to lead to an erosion of public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice. It is for this reason that the avoidance and elimination of unjustifiable discrepancy in sentencing is a matter of abiding importance to the administration of justice and to the community.”

The parity principle only applies to co-offenders: per Gibbs CJ at 609, Mason J at 611 and Brennan J at 617-618.

Disparity may be an indicator of appelable error: per Brennan J at 617-618.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

21 Bungan Street Pty Limited v Warringah Council

ON 1 AUGUST 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered 21 Bungan Street Pty Limited v Warringah Council [2014] NSWLEC 1158.

The court upheld an appeal by a developer against a decision of Warringah Council regarding a proposed development at 11-13 Bernie Avenue, Forestville.

The court approved the development, which will include 11 units and 24 basement car spaces on the site where two detached dwelling houses will be demolished.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

NCAT Online Dispute Resolution

ON 1 AUGUST 2014, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal commenced the pilot of Online Dispute Resolution, a web based tool allowing parties to selected small consumer claims to negotiate online without attending the Tribunal.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

University of NSW v Moorhouse [1975] HCA 26 | 1 August 1975

ON 1 AUGUST 1975, the High Court of Australia delivered University of NSW v Moorhouse [1975] HCA 26; (1975) 133 CLR 1 (1 August 1975).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1975/26.html

The University of NSW was declared to have authorized an infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright by providing coin operated photocopy machines without taking proper measures to prevent an infringement.

Subsequent to this decision, the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) was amended to the effect that libraries are not to be taken as authorizing copyright infringement if a notice setting out the relevant provisions of the Act is displayed near the photocopy machine.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) | 1 August 1984

ON 1 AUGUST 1984, the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 commenced.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda1984209/

Lawyers 1300 00 2088