Muldrock v The Queen

High Court of Australia | 2011-10-05

A man with an intellectual disability who offended against a young boy received a nine-year sentence with a very short non-parole period so he could get specialised treatment. The appeal court increased the non-parole period because it thought the sentencing judge had not properly used the 15-year standard non-parole period as a starting point. The High Court said this was the wrong approach. Judges must look at all the facts about the crime and the person together, using the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period only as guides rather than as fixed steps. Because the man's disability helped cause the offence, he was far less morally blameworthy, so general deterrence barely mattered and rehabilitation was more important. The nine-year sentence was too long. The case was sent back to be sentenced again taking proper account of his disability.

1,420 case citations

Hili v The Queen

High Court of Australia | 2010-12-08

Two men who ran a tax evasion scheme using fake offshore loans to claim false deductions were given short prison sentences with early release. Prosecutors successfully appealed, saying the sentences were far too light. The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal increased the sentences but said there is usually a 'norm' that offenders serve 60-66% of their sentence before release. The High Court said there is no such fixed percentage or starting point in federal sentencing law. Judges must look at all the circumstances of the particular crime and offender under the Commonwealth Crimes Act and decide what sentence is appropriate. Numerical rules or charts of past cases cannot replace that. The original sentences were indeed too lenient given the serious, planned fraud over years that hurt the whole community, so the increased sentences stood.

1,058 case citations

John Prendergast & Vanessa Prendergast v Western Murray Irrigation Ltd

NCAT Appeal Panel | 2014-10-23

Appellants disputed water charges after a meter failed. The Tribunal used historical averages and expert reports and dismissed the consumer claim. On appeal the Panel found two arguable legal questions (procedural fairness and failure to consider relevant factors) but concluded there was no error of law: late documents were properly excluded to protect fairness, the Tribunal had regard to personal and land-related factors and expert material, and the respondent's adjusted estimate was within the range of reasonable assessments. Leave to appeal on other grounds was refused because the appellants did not show a substantial miscarriage of justice (see [20]–[46], [47]–[55]).

995 case citations

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa

Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW) | 2010-05-19

967 case citations

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li

High Court of Australia | 2013-05-08

The High Court decided that the Migration Review Tribunal acted unlawfully when it refused to wait a short time for the outcome of a review of a cook's skills assessment before finalising its decision on her permanent visa. The assessment was essential because the visa rules required it to be valid at decision time. The tribunal had been told there were clear mistakes in the latest assessment and that a positive result was likely soon, yet it gave no good reason for rushing ahead other than that the applicant had already had enough chances. All three judgments agreed this was unreasonable: it ignored the purpose of the hearing right in s 360, was arbitrary, and meant the tribunal never properly carried out its job of reviewing the visa refusal. The appeal by the Minister was dismissed, so the case goes back to the tribunal.

922 case citations

Jones v Dunkel

High Court of Australia | 1959-07-01

A widow sued the owner and driver of a diesel truck after her husband died in a head-on collision on a wet curving road. Only circumstantial evidence was available showing the positions and damage to the trucks afterwards. The defendants chose not to call the surviving driver to explain what happened. The trial judge left the case to the jury but gave an incomplete direction on what the jury could make of the driver's absence. The High Court held by majority that the physical evidence allowed the jury to infer the defendants' truck was probably on the wrong side of the road at the moment of impact, and that the judge should have told the jury they could draw that inference more confidently because the one person who could have given a direct account was not called. A new trial was ordered. The case is now the leading authority on when a court may draw an adverse inference from a party's failure to call an available witness.

879 case citations

R v THOMSON; R v HOULTON

Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW) | 2000-05-12

The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (Spigelman CJ and majority) considered whether to issue a guideline on how sentencing judges should treat guilty pleas. The Court found evidence that many guilty pleas occur late because practitioners and accuseds do not perceive a reliable sentencing benefit. To encourage earlier pleas and increase transparency, the Court adopted a non-binding guideline: judges should explicitly state that they have taken a plea into account; they are encouraged, where appropriate, to quantify the effect of the plea (especially the utilitarian savings) and the Court suggested a general utilitarian discount range of 10-25 percent, with timing of the plea and trial complexity guiding the exact figure. The guideline preserves judicial discretion and the instinctive synthesis approach, allows for cases where no discount is appropriate, and applies to State offences only (see [160], [152]-[156]).

866 case citations