- Headnote
- Posts
- Thomas Lang loses HCA appeal (12 October 2023)
Thomas Lang loses HCA appeal (12 October 2023)
Was this email forwarded to you?
Sign up for Headnote’s free daily newsletter at Headnote.com.au.
For best viewing use the read online link above
Daily wrap
Judgment summary found here - Lang v The Queen [2023] HCA 29
Justice McElwaine judgment found here - Environment Council of Central Queensland Inc v Minister for the Environment and Water (No 2) [2023] FCA 1208
NSW Court of Criminal Appeal reduces Sydney murderer Mert Ney's prison sentence - ABC News
Beech-Jones CJ at CL, Campbell J and Weinstein J - judgment and judgment summary found here - Ney v R [2023] NSWCCA 252
Pop star Vanessa Amorosi sues her mother over unpaid earnings, property ownership - ABC News
Reserve Bank to oversee Apple Pay, Google Pay, digital wallets | Canberra Times
“Apple Pay, Google Pay and other digital payment services will be regulated in the same way as credit cards, EFTPOS and other transactions under draft laws to be unveiled by the federal government on Wednesday.”
Mann v R [2023] NSWCCA 256 (Kirk JA, N Adams J, R A Hulme AJ)
Kirk JA
[110] “The conduct of Detective Gibson acted to nullify the protective effect of cll 31, 34, 36 and 37 of the LEPRA Regulation…”
[112] “Despite his knowledge of what had been communicated to ALS, and despite what he had been told by the applicant’s mother, he took the applicant into an interview room and commenced an interview without explanation, and without asking either Ms Mann or the applicant if they wished to do the interview. No doubt Detective Gibson considered – correctly – that given the applicant’s earlier admissions, the applicant would likely respond to questioning in frank terms. The motivation of an investigator to try to get the applicant talking on the record is understandable. It does not justify undermining the legal protections of vulnerable people.”
[116] “Taken as a whole, the conduct of Detective Gibson involved impropriety in the sense employed in s 138. Indeed, here the conduct is appropriately characterised as being substantially improper.”
In the HCA tomorrow for hearing - The King v Rohan (a pseudonym)
From case catchwords - “Where Court of Appeal held respondent suffered substantial miscarriage of justice on charges 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9, because jury not directed that it needed to be satisfied to criminal standard that respondent knew relevant complainants were under statutory prescribed age when respondent agreed with co-offenders that he would engage in criminal act – Whether, on proper construction, implied into s 323(1)(c) should be words "intentionally" and "knowing or believing facts that make proposed conduct offence".”
Editor’s picks
Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: What it is and why we need it - by John Tasioulas, Professor of Ethics and Legal Philosophy at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, and inaugural Director of the Institute for Ethics in AI.
Like our free newsletter?
The best way to support us is by telling others about it!
Have some feedback or content for our newsletter? Let us know [email protected]