ON 5 OCTOBER 1988, the High Court of Australia delivered Hoch v R [1988] HCA 50; (1988) 165 CLR 292 (5 October 1988).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/165clr292.html
Propensity evidence should be rejected if there is a reasonable possibility of concoction.
1300 00 2088
ON 15 SEPTEMBER 1988, Michael and Lindy Chamberlain were acquitted by the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal, who quashed their earlier convictions.
1300 00 2088
ON 21 AUGUST 1987, the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit delivered Carter v Rafferty 826 F.2d 1299 (1987).
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/826/1299/321412/
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 22 MAY 1987, the report of Commissioner Justice T R Morling of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Chamberlain convictions was released. The report concluded that there was a reasonable doubt as to the Chamberlains’ guilt.
1300 00 2088
ON 11 JULY 1985, the High Court of Australia delivered He Kaw Teh v R [1985] HCA 43; (1985) 157 CLR 523 (11 July 1985).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1985/43.html
Even if a statute does not indicate that intent is an element of a grave criminal offence, it is to be presumed that intent is an element to be proved by the prosecution. In cases of possession, knowledge of the goods being in the accused’s custody is a necessary element and therefore knowledge must be proved by the prosecution.
In this case, the accused claimed that he did not know that he was in possession of heroin and therefore did not knowingly bring it into the country in contravention of the Customs Act.
Finding that the provision required proof of knowledge and intent, the court allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to determine the questions of knowledge and intent in accordance with the High Court’s judgment.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 29 MAY 1985, the High Court of Australia delivered R v Chin [1985] HCA 35; (1985) 157 CLR 671 (29 May 1985).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/157clr671.html
1300 00 2088
ON 26 MARCH 1985, the High Court of Australia delivered R v Crabbe [1985] HCA 22; (1985) 156 CLR 464 (26 March 1985). Douglas Crabbe killed five people and injured many more when he drove a Mack truck into a bar at Uluru after being refused service of alcohol. He was tried for murder on the grounds of recklessness as opposed to intent.
“…a person who, without lawful justification or excuse, does an act knowing that it is probable that death or grievous bodily harm will result, is guilty of murder if death in fact results.”
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
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.
1300 00 2088
ON 19 JUNE 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered R v Apostilides [1984] HCA 38; (1984) 154 CLR 563 (19 June 1984).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/154clr563.html
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY in 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Chamberlain v R (No 2) (“Chamberlain case”) [1984] HCA 7; (1984) 153 CLR 521 (22 February 1984).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/7.html
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 