ON 16 JUNE 1998, the High Court of Australia delivered Gipp v R [1998] HCA 21; 194 CLR 106; 155 ALR 15; 72 ALJR 1012 (16 June 1998).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/21.html
1300 00 2088
Category Archives: Criminal Procedure
Palmer v R [1998] HCA 2
ON 20 JANUARY 1998, the High Court of Australia delivered Palmer v R [1998] HCA 2; 193 CLR 1; 151 ALR 16; 72 ALJR 254 (20 January 1998).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1998/2.html
1300 00 2088
R v Swaffield [1998] HCA 1
ON 20 JANUARY 1998, the High Court of Australia delivered R v Swaffield [1998] HCA 1; 192 CLR 159; 151 ALR 98; 72 ALJR 339 (20 January 1998).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Postiglione v R [1997] HCA 26
ON 24 JULY 1997, the High Court of Australia delivered Postiglione v R [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295; (1997) 145 ALR 408; (1997) 71 ALJR 875 (24 July 1997).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1997/26.html
The decision is an exposition of the principle of due proportionality set out in the earlier decision of the court in Lowe v R [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606 (2 August 1984).
Different sentences may be imposed upon like offenders to reflect different degrees of culpability or different circumstances of the offenders.
At 302, Dawson and Gaudron JJ said:
“Discrepancy or disparity is not simply a question of the imposition of different sentences for the same offence. Rather, it is a question of due proportion between those sentences, that being a matter to be determined having regard to the different circumstances of the co-offenders in question and their different degrees of criminality.”
1300 00 2088
Ridgeway v R [1995] HCA 66
ON 19 APRIL 1995, the High Court of Australia delivered Ridgeway v R [1995] HCA 66; (1995) 184 CLR 19 (19 April 1995).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1995/66.html
A conviction for drug importation was quashed after the High Court excluded certain evidence that was unlawfully obtained by the police in a controlled operation. However, the court did not go as far as stating that a defence of entrapment exists under Australian law if a person voluntarily and with the necessary intent commits an unlawful act induced by another.
The Commonwealth Parliament subsequently amended the Crimes Act to make controlled operations legal in order to protect such evidence from being ruled inadmissible.
1300 00 2088
Pfennig v R [1995] HCA 7
ON 17 FEBRUARY 1995, the High Court of Australia delivered Pfennig v R [1995] HCA 7; (1995) 182 CLR 461; (1995) 127 ALR 99; (1995) 69 ALJR 147 (17 February 1995).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/182clr461.html
1300 00 2088
M v R [1994] HCA 63
ON 13 DECEMBER 1994, the High Court of Australia delivered M v R [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487; (1994) 126 ALR 325; (1994) 69 ALJR 83 (13 December 1994).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1994/63.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Coco v R
ON THIS DAY in 1994, the High Court of Australia delivered Coco v R [1994] HCA 15; (1994) 179 CLR 427; (1994) 120 ALR 415; (1994) Aust Torts Reports 81-270; (1994) 68 ALJR 401; (1994) 72 A Crim R 32 (13 April 1994).
The court restated the principle that it is presumed that parliament does not intend to limit fundamental rights, freedoms or immunities unless it does so in clear terms.
Per Mason CJ, Brennan, Gaudron and McHugh JJ:
“The courts should not impute to the legislature an intention to
interfere with fundamental rights. Such an intention must be clearly
manifested by unmistakable and unambiguous language.”
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1994/15.html
Peter O’Grady
Edwards v R [1993] HCA 63
ON 17 NOVEMBER 1993, the High Court of Australia delivered Edwards v R [1993] HCA 63; (1993) 178 CLR 193; (1993) 68 A Crim R 349 (17 November 1993).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/178clr193.html
1300 00 2088
Weissensteiner v R [1993] HCA 65
ON 17 NOVEMBER 1993, the High Court of Australia delivered Weissensteiner v R [1993] HCA 65; (1993) 178 CLR 217; (1993) 68 A Crim R 251 (17 November 1993).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/178clr217.html
The accused’s election to exercise the right to silence is not free from consequences. In this case, the majority of the High Court held that the trial judge did not make an error by directing the jury that the prosecution’s inferences could be more safely drawn when “the accused elects not to give evidence of relevant facts which can be easily perceived to be in his knowledge”.
Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ said: “Much depends upon the circumstances of the particular case and a jury should not be invited to take into account the failure of the accused to give evidence unless that failure is clearly capable of assisting them in the evaluation of the evidence before them.”
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 