Can police disclose personal information about a juvenile offender to that offender’s school?
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal has recently clarified when disclosures will be part of the NSW Police’s ‘administrative and educational functions,’ and therefore be subject to the requirements of the NSW Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act (PIPPA).
Revenge porn and image-based abuse
(A version of this post was originally posted on Amicus on 6 June 2017) In NSW it is a criminal offence to non-consensually share intimate images. These offences, reflect but go further than, similar laws in South Australia and Victoria – which are both limited to distribution and do not provide the same level of detail with regard to…
McPhillamy v The Queen
In McPhillamy v The Queen, the High Court held that tendency evidence which related to acts committed ten years prior to the charged acts did not possess significant probative value and was therefore inadmissible. In essence, the evidence was flawed because of amount of time that had elapsed between the charged acts and the acts…
Hughes v R: Assessing significant probative value for tendency evidence
(The post was originally published on Amicus on 14 June 2017) In a 4:3 decision, the High Court handed down judgement today in Hughes v R. In doing so it resolved a divergence between the VSCA and the NSWCCA regarding how to determine whether tendency evidence has significant probative value.
Luppino v Fisher: Can a court order a defendant to unlock their phone?
Luppino v Fisher was an interlocutory application decided in late 2018 by White J. The Plaintiff in the substantive matter was seeking judicial review of an order compelling him to provide passwords for his phone and any installed apps to the AFP, where that phone had been seized pursuant to a warrant. The contested order…
Conflicting verdicts: Ganiji v R
In Ganiji v R, the CCA has denied an appeal against conviction for one count where the jury acquitted on a second count. In doing so, Basten JA discussed the circumstances in which it will not be appropriate to conclude that two verdicts are inconsistent. CONTENT WARNING: SEXUAL VIOLENCE
Minogue v State of Victoria
In Minogue v Victoria, the High Court has rejected an application to declare certain provisions of the Corrections Act (Vic) constitutionally invalid. In doing so, the Court has affirmed Crump and Knight.and discussed the distinction between the executive and judicial powers in the context of parole decisions.
Pell v The Queen – unreasonable verdicts and ‘beyond reasonable doubt’
(This post was originally published on Amicus on 8 April 2020) In Pell v The Queen the High Court has unanimously allowed an appeal from the Victorian Court of Appeal’s (VCA) majority decision to reject a conviction appeal. The High Court held that the jury should have held reasonable doubts about the guilt of the…
Guode – infanticide, mental impairment and sentencing
In Guode by a 3:2 majority, the High Court has allowed a Crown appeal from a VSCA decision with the the majority holding that that the VSCA erred in taking into account guilty plea to infanticide as a consideration in determining sentences for murder and attempted murder. CONTENT WARNING: Child homicide
Swan – Causation in murder and the ‘substantial cause’ test
Originally posted on Amicus on 18 March 2020. The High Court handed down judgment today in Swan, dismissing an appeal from the NSWCCA. The question on appeal was whether it was open to the jury – as one of three possible causation pathways – to conclude that the appellant’s attack on the victim substantially caused…
Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.
Follow My Blog
Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.