Australia High Court Court February 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Man Haron Monis Vs. the Queen and Another
Court: Australia High Court
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
FRENCH CJ. Introduction 1. These appeals arise out of charges laid against the appellants, one of whom, Man Haron Monis, is said, in 2007, 2008 and 2009, to have written letters[1] to parents and relatives of soldiers killed on active service in Afghanistan which were critical of Australia's involvement in that country and reflected upon the part played in it by the deceased soldiers. The other appellant, Amirah Droudis, is said to have aided and abetted him in relation to a number of those letters. The appellants were charged under s 471.12 of the Criminal Code (Cth) ("the Code"), which prohibits the use of a postal or similar service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, "offensive". 2. The Australian Constitution limits the power of parliaments to impose burdens on freedom of communication on government and political matters. No Australian parliament can validly enact a law which effectively burdens freedom of communication about those mat...
Attorney-general for the State of South Australia Vs. the Corporation ...
Court: Australia High Court
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
FRENCH CJ. Introduction 1. Caleb Corneloup, the second respondent, is the President of an incorporated association known as "Street Church". Samuel Corneloup, the third respondent, describes himself as an "expositor of the Gospel". Each has preached his religious beliefs and associated political beliefs in the City of Adelaide ("the City"). Each has done so without permission from the Corporation of the City of Adelaide ("the Council"), which was required by By-law No 4, entitled "Roads". The third respondent was convicted in the Magistrates Court of South Australia on 27 July 2010[1] and fined $250. His appeal against that conviction is pending in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The second and third respondents, Street Church and a number of other persons are the defendants to an injunction proceeding commenced by the Council in the Supreme Court. The Council sought to restrain those defendants from preaching, canvassing, haranguing or distributing printed material within the ar...
Nicholaas Paul Michaelides Vs. the Queen
Court: Australia High Court
Decided on: Feb-15-2013
FRENCH CJ AND CRENNAN J. 1. The applicant, who was convicted on two counts of extortion, seeks special leave to appeal against a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissing his appeal against conviction, which had been brought under s 668E of the Criminal Code (Q) on the ground that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence. For the reasons which follow, special leave should be refused. 2. The applicant complains that the Court of Appeal adopted an erroneous formulation of the test for the application of s 668E. A formulation which the Court of Appeal applied was that the jury, acting reasonably, "must have had sufficient doubt about [the complainant's] evidence to warrant the acquittal of the [applicant]."[1] The applicant contends that as a matter of law that formulation of the test has been overtaken by the judgment of this Court in MFA v The Queen[2]. It is said that the correct formu...
Commissioner of Police Vs. David Grant Eaton and Another
Court: Australia High Court
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
HEYDON J. 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales ("the Court of Appeal"). The appellant is the Commissioner of Police ("the Commissioner"). David Grant Eaton ("the first respondent") is a probationary constable whom the Commissioner purportedly dismissed. The second respondent is the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales ("the Commission"). The appeal concerns the interrelationship between two statutes. One is the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) ("the IR Act"). The other is the Police Act 1990 (NSW) ("the Police Act"). 2. Section 84(1) of the IR Act provides: "If an employer dismisses an employee and the employee claims that the dismissal is harsh, unreasonable or unjust, the employee may apply to the Commission for the claim to be dealt with under this Part [ie Ch 2 Pt 6]." 3. Section 80 of the Police Act relevantly provides: "(1) The Commissioner may, subject to this Act and the regulations, appoint any per...
Google Inc Vs. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Court: Australia High Court
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
FRENCH CJ, CRENNAN AND KIEFEL JJ. 1. The appellant, Google Inc ("Google"), operates the well-known internet search engine "Google" ("the Google search engine")[1]. The respondent, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ("the ACCC"), claims that particular search results displayed by the Google search engine between 2005 and 2008 conveyed misleading and deceptive representations, and that, by publishing or displaying those search results, Google engaged in conduct in contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ("the Act")[2]. 2. In July 2007, the ACCC initiated proceedings under Pt VI of the Act, seeking declarations and injunctive relief against Google and another party. At first instance in the Federal Court of Australia, the primary judge (Nicholas J) dismissed the ACCC's application to the extent that it related to Google on the basis that Google had not made the misleading and deceptive representations relied upon by the ACCC[3]. The Full Court of the Fe...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›