On whether equivalent interstate traffic convictions count for the purposes of section 9 of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)

By David P Rofe (The author would like to thank Ms Lily Davies for her assistance with this post)

There is confusion amongst the legal fraternity as to whether equivalent interstate traffic convictions can be taken into account in determining whether an offence under the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) (‘the Act’) is a ‘first offence’ or a ‘second or subsequent offence’. This area of law is in need of reform, or a Supreme Court judgment, in order to provide clarification to legal practitioners, police prosecutors, and Magistrates. The source of the confusion is analysed below. Continue reading “On whether equivalent interstate traffic convictions count for the purposes of section 9 of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)”

An Act that is ‘always speaking’: Aubrey v The Queen [2017] HCA 18 (10 May 2017)

‘Always speaking’ approach to statutory construction and contemporary understandings of GBH

By Suzanne Martinez

Introduction

The High Court, by a 4:1 majority, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against a decision of the NSWCCA. The majority clarified the meaning of ‘inflict grievous bodily harm’ in a historical provision of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Crimes Act) that applied at the time of offending in 2004. Further, it was held that infliction of grievous bodily harm (GBH) did not require direct or indirect application of force and may be inflicted by the transmission of sexual disease. In 2007 and 2012 – after the offences were committed – the relevant provisions of the Crimes Act were substantially amended, and now similarly define GBH to include transmission of grievous bodily disease. Therefore, you ask, what contemporary relevance does this decision have?

Continue reading “An Act that is ‘always speaking’: Aubrey v The Queen [2017] HCA 18 (10 May 2017)”

It is a matter of interpretation: Pickering v The Queen [2017] HCA 17 (3 May 2017)

By Rhanda Taouk

In Pickering v The Queen [2017] HCA 17 the High Court, in two separate judgments, unanimously allowed an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The High Court held that the appellant was occasioned a miscarriage of justice as the trial judge had failed to leave to the jury the possible application of s 31(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Q) (‘the Code’). Section 31(1) enables an accused in certain circumstances to be exculpated for an act or omission for which they would otherwise be criminally responsible. Section 31(2) provides exceptions to s 31(1).

Continue reading “It is a matter of interpretation: Pickering v The Queen [2017] HCA 17 (3 May 2017)”