Category Archives: Criminal Procedure

Constitutional law, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, LAW FIRM, Uncategorized

Cheatle v R [1993] HCA 44

ON 26 AUGUST 1993, the High Court of Australia delivered Cheatle v R [1993] HCA 44; (1993) 177 CLR 541 (26 August 1993).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1993/44.html

South Australian law allowed for a majority verdict of 10 or 11 jurors. Mr and Mrs Cheatle were convicted by a majority verdict of a South Australian jury for the indictable offence of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth. The High Court allowed an appeal, holding that s80 of the Constitution required unanimous verdicts for Commonwealth indictable offences. A new trial was ordered.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, LAW FIRM

Foster v R [1993] HCA 80

ON 19 MAY 1993, the High Court of Australia delivered Foster v R [1993] HCA 80; (1993) 113 ALR 1; (1993) 67 ALJR 550; (1993) 66 A Crim R 112 (19 May 1993).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1993/80.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, LAW FIRM

Walton v Gardiner [1993] HCA 77

ON 29 April 1993, the High Court of Australia delivered Walton v Gardiner [1993] HCA 77; (1993) 177 CLR 378; (1993) 112 ALR 289; (1993) 67 ALJR 485 (29 April 1993).

Stay of proceedings – Inherent jurisdiction – Abuse of process – Medical practitioners – Complaints

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1993/77.html

The NSW Court of Appeal had granted a stay of proceedings concerning new complaints made against three medical practitioners regarding their treatment of patients at the Chelmsford Private Hospital in Sydney on the grounds that the new complaints raised issues overlapping with earlier complaints such that they were so unfairly and unjustly oppressive that they constituted an abuse of process.

The High Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision, holding that the court has the inherent power or jurisdiction to stay proceedings as an abuse of process if the continuation of the proceedings would involve unacceptable injustice or unfairness.  The court also held that the grounds upon which such a stay is granted is not limited to matters where the proceedings are brought for an improper purpose or where there is no possibility of a fair hearing.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Costs, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, LAW FIRM, Legal Aid

Dietrich v R [1992] HCA 57

ON 13 NOVEMBER 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Dietrich v R [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292 (13 November 1992).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/57.html

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Civil procedure, Criminal Procedure, LAW FIRM, Practice and Procedure

Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34

ON 27 JULY 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34; (1992) 174 CLR 509 (27 July 1992).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/34.html

The case concerns the use of the court’s power to grant a stay of proceedings when the proceedings have been used for an improper purpose.

After being dismissed from the University of Newcastle, Dr Spautz threatened, instituted and maintained private prosecutions of charges of conspiracy and criminal defamation against former colleagues including Professor Williams and others (“the appellants”).

The appellants obtained a stay of proceedings order from the Supreme Court of NSW. The trial judge found that the proceedings had been brought for the improper purpose of “exerting pressure upon the University of Newcastle to reinstate him and/or to agree to a favourable settlement of his wrongful dismissal case”.

The NSW Court of Appeal quashed the orders, holding that the appellants could receive a fair trial and that there was no evidence of any misconduct in the way the prosecution was conducted.

The High Court allowed an appeal, setting aside the Court of Appeal’s decision, declaring that the prosecutions were an abuse of process and ordering that the prosecutions be stayed permanently.

The decision provides:

  • Australian courts have the inherent jurisdiction to stay criminal and civil proceedings.
  • The court may grant stays in (1) proceedings in which a party may not receive a fair trial and (2) proceedings brought for an improper purpose.
  • Before granting a stay for improper purpose, the court is not required to satisfy itself that there will be an unfair trial if the prosecution is not stopped: at 519-520.
  • Proceedings may be stayed notwithstanding that the prosecution has a prima facie case: at 522.
  • The court must have the power to act effectively within its jurisdiction, even if it means refraining from exercising their jurisdiction as it is in the public interest to ensure public confidence that the processes are used fairly and not for oppression or injustice.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, LAW FIRM

Domican v R [1992] HCA 13

ON 6 MAY 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Domican v R [1992] HCA 13; (1992) 173 CLR 555 (6 May 1992).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/173clr555.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, Landmark cases, LAW FIRM

McKinney v R [1991] HCA 6

ON 22 MARCH 1991, the High Court of Australia delivered McKinney v R [1991] HCA 6; (1991) 171 CLR 468 (22 March 1991).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/6.html

A trial judge must warn a jury of the dangers of convicting the accused on the basis of their alleged admissions whilst in custody.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, LAW FIRM

Shepherd v R [1990] HCA 56

ON 19 DECEMBER 1990, the High Court of Australia delivered Shepherd v R [1990] HCA 56; (1990) 170 CLR 573 (19 December 1990).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/170clr573.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, LAW FIRM

Doney v R [1990] HCA 51

ON 27 NOVEMBER 1990, the High Court of Australia delivered Doney v R [1990] HCA 51; (1990) 171 CLR 207 (27 November 1990).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/171clr207.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, LAW FIRM, Law reform, Legislation

Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)

ON 3 SEPTEMBER 1990, the NSW Mental Health (Forensic Procedures) Act 1990 (formerly known as the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990) commenced.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/mhpa1990355

The significant provisions are found in Part 3, specifically s32.

MENTAL HEALTH (FORENSIC PROVISIONS) ACT 1990 – SECT 32
Persons suffering from mental illness or condition
32 Persons suffering from mental illness or condition

(1) If, at the commencement or at any time during the course of the hearing of proceedings before a Magistrate, it appears to the Magistrate:
(a) that the defendant is (or was at the time of the alleged commission of the offence to which the proceedings relate):
(i) developmentally disabled, or

(ii) suffering from mental illness, or

(iii) suffering from a mental condition for which treatment is available in a mental health facility,
but is not a mentally ill person, and
(b) that, on an outline of the facts alleged in the proceedings or such other evidence as the Magistrate may consider relevant, it would be more appropriate to deal with the defendant in accordance with the provisions of this Part than otherwise in accordance with law,
the Magistrate may take the action set out in subsection (2) or (3).
(2) The Magistrate may do any one or more of the following:
(a) adjourn the proceedings,

(b) grant the defendant bail in accordance with the Bail Act 2013 ,

(c) make any other order that the Magistrate considers appropriate.

(3) The Magistrate may make an order dismissing the charge and discharge the defendant:
(a) into the care of a responsible person, unconditionally or subject to conditions, or

(b) on the condition that the defendant attend on a person or at a place specified by the Magistrate for assessment of the defendant’s mental condition or treatment or both, or

(c) unconditionally.

(3A) If a Magistrate suspects that a defendant subject to an order under subsection (3) may have failed to comply with a condition under that subsection, the Magistrate may, within 6 months of the order being made, call on the defendant to appear before the Magistrate.

(3B) If the defendant fails to appear, the Magistrate may:
(a) issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest, or

(b) authorise an authorised officer within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest.

(3C) If, however, at the time the Magistrate proposes to call on a defendant referred to in subsection (3A) to appear before the Magistrate, the Magistrate is satisfied that the location of the defendant is unknown, the Magistrate may immediately:
(a) issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest, or

(b) authorise an authorised officer within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest.

(3D) If a Magistrate discharges a defendant subject to a condition under subsection (3), and the defendant fails to comply with the condition within 6 months of the discharge, the Magistrate may deal with the charge as if the defendant had not been discharged.

(4) A decision under this section to dismiss charges against a defendant does not constitute a finding that the charges against the defendant are proven or otherwise.

(4A) A Magistrate is to state the reasons for making a decision as to whether or not a defendant should be dealt with under subsection (2) or (3).

(4B) A failure to comply with subsection (4A) does not invalidate any decision of a Magistrate under this section.

(5) The regulations may prescribe the form of an order under this section.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088