Re Commodore Business Machines Pty Limited v Trade Practices Commission [1990] FCA 77 (21 March 1990).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1990/77.html
1300 00 2088
Tag Archives: LOWER NORTH SHORE
Nguyen v Nguyen [1990] HCA 9
COMPENSATION TO RELATIVES. ON THIS DAY in 1990, the High Court of Australia delivered Nguyen v Nguyen [1990] HCA 9; (1990) 169 CLR 245 (8 March 1990).
In this matter, a widower was able to claim the loss of unpaid domestic services of his late wife.
In a Lord Campbell’s Act claim, a loss may include the value of services the deceased would have provided around the home.
1300 00 2088
Mosman Municipal Council v Barriskill & Ors; Grayspence v Barriskill & Ors [1990] NSWLEC 25
Mosman Municipal Council v Barriskill & Ors; Grayspence v Barriskill & Ors [1990] NSWLEC 25 (28 February 1990).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/1990/25.html
1300 00 2088
Director of Public Prosecutions v United Telecasters Sydney Ltd [1990] HCA 5
ON 15 FEBRUARY 1999, the High Court of Australia delivered Director of Public Prosecutions v United Telecasters Sydney Ltd [1990] HCA 5; (1990) 168 CLR 594 (15 February 1990).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/168clr594.html
1300 00 2088
Rogers v Bugden (1993) Aust Torts Reports 81-246
ON 14 FEBRUARY 1990, the NSW Supreme Court delivered Rogers v Bugden (Unreported, 14 February 1990) which went on appeal in Bugden v Rogers (1993) Aust. Torts Reports 81-246.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Longman v R [1989] HCA 60
ON 6 DECEMBER 1989, the High Court of Australia delivered Longman v R [1989] HCA 60; (1989) 168 CLR 79 (6 December 1989).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/168clr79.html
Complaints of unlawfully and indecently dealing with or assaulting three girls under the age of 14 years were made against Longman (the appellant) at a time over 20 years after the alleged offences. At trial, the jury were told to consider the “relative credibility of the complainant and the appellant without either a warning or a mention of the factors relevant to the evaluation of the evidence”.
The High Court held that what the jury was told was not sufficient.
Per Brennan, Dawson and Toohey JJ at [30]:
“The jury should have been told that, as the evidence of the complainant could not be adequately tested after the passage of more than 20 years, it would be dangerous to convict on that evidence alone unless the jury, scrutinizing the evidence with great care, considering the circumstances relevant to its evaluation and paying heed to the warning, were satisfied of its truth and accuracy. To leave a jury without such a full appreciation of the danger was to risk a miscarriage of justice.”
The High Court ordered a retrial because the absence of a warning made the conviction “unsafe and unsatisfactory”.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989 (NSW)
ON 27 NOVEMBER 1989, the NSW Parliament enacted the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/eoapa1989n150370
The Act has since been repealed and incorporated in the NSW Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1987.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/poteoa1997455
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Street v Queensland Bar Association [1989] HCA 53
ON 16 NOVEMBER 1989, the High Court of Australia delivered Street v Queensland Bar Association [1989] HCA 53; (1989) 168 CLR 461 (16 November 1989).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1989/53.html
Section 117 of the Australian Constitution provides: “A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State”.
The Rules of Court for Barristers applying for admission in Queensland were held to not apply to Mr Street as they contravened s117 of the Constitution by requiring him to have an intention of practising principally in Queensland.
1300 00 2088
Guildford Four released
ON 19 OCTOBER 1989, the Guildford Four were released from prison after their conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/19/newsid_2490000/2490039.stm
1300 00 2088
Jago v District Court of NSW
ON 12 OCTOBER 1989, the High Court of Australia delivered Jago v District Court of NSW [1989] HCA 46; (1989) 168 CLR 23 (12 October 1989).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1989/46.html
Superior Courts “possess an inherent power to prevent their processes being used in a manner which gives rise to injustice”.
The inherent jurisdiction of the Superior Courts empowers them to order a permanent stay of proceedings to prevent an abuse of process. The power is to be exercised with fairness as the “touchstone”: per Mason at 31.
A permanent stay of proceedings will only be ordered in an “extreme case”: Per Mason CJ at 34.
Per Mason CJ at 33-34:
“The test of fairness which must be applied involves a balancing process, for the interests of the accused cannot be considered in isolation without regard to the community’s right to expect that persons charged with criminal offences are brought to trial…At the same time, it should not be overlooked that the community expects trials to be fair and to take place within a reasonable time after a person has been charged. The factors which need to be taken into account in deciding whether a permanent stay is needed in order to vindicate the accused’s right to be protected against unfairness in the course of criminal proceedings cannot be precisely defined in a way which will cover every case. But they will generally include such matters as the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the accused’s responsibility for asserting his rights and, of course, the prejudice suffered by the accused… In any event, a permanent stay should be ordered only in an extreme case and the making of such an order on the basis of delay alone will accordingly be very rare…
To justify a permanent stay of criminal proceedings, there must be a fundamental defect which goes to the root of the trial ‘of such a nature that nothing that a trial judge can do in the conduct of the trial can relieve against its unfair consequences’…Where delay is the sole ground of complaint, an accused seeking a permanent stay must be ‘able to show that the lapse of time is such that any trial is necessarily unfair so that any conviction would bring the administration of justice into disrepute’…”
It is fundamental to the legal system that an accused be given a fair trial according to the law. The accused has “a right not to be tried unfairly or as an immunity against conviction otherwise than after a fair trial.”: per Deane at 56-57.
The five main considerations in determining whether or not proceedings should be stayed on the grounds of unfair delay are, per Deane J at 60:
- “the length of the delay”
- “reasons given by the prosecution to explain or justify the delay”
- “the accused’s responsibility for and past attitude to the delay”
- “proven or likely prejudice to the accused”
- “the public interest in the disposition of charges of serious offences and in the conviction of those guilty of crime.”
Peter O’Grady, Lawyer
BA, LLB, Grad Cert Leg Prac, Acc Spec
Principal Solicitor, Legal Helpdesk
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 