July Special Leave Rundown

Eight cases were given special leave to appeal (or referred to the Full Court) on Friday, they were:

Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZGUR [2010] FCA 171

This case relates to the rejection by the Refugee Review Tribunal of an application for a protection visa by a Nepalese national. The principal dispute is whether the Tribunal gave sufficient consideration to a serious request by the appellant for a medical examination, in order to show that inconsistencies in the appellant’s evidence can be explained by depression and bipolar disorder.

SKA v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 186
(The case was referred to an enlarged court for hearing of the leave application with the appeal.)

The appellant was convicted of charges relating to sexual acts against a child. Before the Court of Criminal Appeal, the issues related to the regard that an appeal court should have to evidence of a complainant given by video, as apposed to the transcript of that evidence. There was also consideration of general approaches to sentencing.

R v Glyn Jones; R v Anthony Hili [2010] NSWCCA 108
(The case was referred to an enlarged court for hearing of the leave application with the appeal.)

This is another case arising from the ‘Project Wickenby’ crack down on an offshore tax rort (see also Hogan v ACC). Two men who pleaded guilty to involvement in the scheme had their sentences increased by the CCA as inadequate. The case raises sentencing principles specific to white-collar “revenue offences”, including the relevance of cooperating with authorities.

Jeffrey Braysich v The Queen [2009] WASCA 178

This appeal is brought by former stockbroker Jeffrey Braysich who was notoriously charged for wash trading in Western Australia. The case considers the relevant mental element that must be satisfied for an offence of creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading in securities.

Derryn Hinch v Detective Senior Constable Hogan

I posted on this case when it was first foreshadowed. Derryn Hinch is, again, going to the High Court in order to avoid contempt proceedings. This time, Hinch’s contempt charges relate to the breaching of suppression orders in relation to sex offenders. Hinch argues that the legislation providing for the suppression of sex offenders is an unconstitutional restriction on the open court and principles of open justice.

The Queen v Nguyen [2010] VSCA 23
(The case was referred to an enlarged court for hearing of the leave application with the appeal.)

The appellant had his convictions for murder and attempted murder quashed and an acquittal entered by the Court of Appeal on the ground that no jury, acting reasonably, could have been satisfied of his guilt. The case raises consideration of the elements of aiding and abetting a crime.

Stubley v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 36

The appellant is a psychologists who was charged with rape of two patients with whom he had sexual encounters at his practice over several years. There is no evidence of threats of violence and the defence case was that the fact that the patients continued to return and engage in the sexual acts displayed tacit consent. The appeal considers whether the trial Judge erred by allowing evidence of other patients who, although not the subject of the charge, alleged similar activities against the accused. Hopefully this case will provide greater certainty to uncharged acts than that provided by the epic decision of HML v The Queen.

Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2010] WASCA 50

This is a case of an industrial accident in which the appellant lost his arm. The case raises issues of duty of care and reasonable foreseeability in situations in which there are employees of several companies (including contractors and subcontractors) working on a particular site. The primary issue deals with whether a labour hire company who provided workers to the site, owed a duty of care to an employee of another company on the site.