8 out of 43 special leave applications granted

Know someone that might be interested in our email newsletter?

Daily wrap  

• Special leave results published yesterday can be found here. 8 grants/removals out of 43 applications.

   

• NSW premier backs top prosecutor who says criticism of sexual assault cases is ‘preposterous’ | New South Wales | The Guardian
   

  • NSW director of public prosecutions orders review of every sexual assault case committed for trial following criticism from judges - ABC News
     

• Shane Drumgold: Cops threaten to sue prosecutor over Lehrmann trial claim | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site

   

• Here's why the name of Samantha Murphy's alleged killer remains a secret — for now - ABC News
   

• ‘He treated me with absolute contempt,’ Al Muderis patient says [SMH paywall]
   

• Scyne seeks court block on exiting partner to safeguard clients [The Australian paywall]
   

  • “Former PwC Australia partner Connie Heaney will on Friday find out whether she’s allowed to start a new job after spin-off Scyne Advisory sought court intervention.”
     

Editor’s picks

• Foreward by Justice Hayne for Justice Brennan’s soon to be released biography can be found here. The biography is to be released next week.
   

• As a lawyer I can’t see how the Sam Kerr race charges could hold up [SMH paywall]
   

• ICAC’s extraordinary powers must be curbed [The Australian paywall]
   

  • “When the NSW ICAC was established in 1988 it was with the best of intentions but its procedural shortfalls created the worst of situations, and after 36 years it needs to be fixed.”
     

• Greylag Goose Leasing 1410 Designated Activity Company & Anor v P.T. Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2024] HCATrans 13 (7 March 2024)
   

  • MR HERZFELD: Yes, there are three points in reply. In 1947, Felix Frankfurter warned against an approach to statutory interpretation that only when the legislative history is doubtful do you go to the statute. It is remarkable how much time Mr Maiden has spent before your Honours construing the extrinsic material, how long it took for him to come to the statutory text, how little engagement with the statutory text there has been, and how feeble is the respondent’s attempt to justify their construction of that text. It contains no words of limitation, it is strikingly different in section 14(3) to subsections (1) and (2), and also the international examples.
     

• The Challenge of ‘Factual Hard Cases’ for Guilty Plea Regimes - Helm - The Modern Law Review - Wiley Online Library
   

  • This article examines how defendant self-conviction via guilty plea changes the application of criminal law, specifically in cases in which there is no right answer as to whether a defendant is guilty prior to trial, despite agreement over descriptive facts. These cases are referred to as ‘factual hard cases’. It suggests that defendants trying themselves in these cases creates risks for defendants and criminal justice systems – the application of law becomes driven by defendant judgement, with accompanying imprudence, vulnerability, and subjectivity, and an expressive function of the criminal trial is stifled. The results of an original empirical study are presented to demonstrate these risks. The article argues that as a result of these risks, and the decoupling of guilty pleas from ethical behaviours, factual hard cases present a challenge to existing plea-based reduction regimes and demonstrate the need for careful thought about what guilty pleas are and why we reward them.
     

• HOEK -v- WA POLICE [2024] WASC 34 (7 March 2024)

   

  • ORDERLY: Your Honour, the next one is on the H list, Mr Hoek.
    
    CALLED: Michael Hoek please.
    
    HER HONOUR: ...Please remain standing. Are you Michael Hoek?
    
    [APPELLANT]: Michael Gerrit (indistinct) yes.
    
    HER HONOUR: I can't hear you. Are you Michael Hoek?
    
    [APPELLANT]: Michael Gerrit Hoek.
    
    HER HONOUR: I cannot hear you. If you are not Michael Hoek, please leave the courtroom (door opening and closing). I cannot hear that person. I have no idea who that person is. Accordingly, I am satisfied there has been no appearance by the accused person.
    
    [PROSECUTOR]: I appreciate your Honour had trouble. I heard him identify as Michael Hoek.
    
    HER HONOUR: Well, I did not hear it.
    
    [PROSECUTOR]: He did - - -
    
    HER HONOUR: Well, I did not hear it, so I don't know why you want to contraindicate me, sir - Sergeant. I did not hear that person. That person did not announce their appearance to the court. I could not hear their announcing their appearance. They have not attended. I do not know who that person is.

     

For enquiries contact [email protected]