Judgments and Sentences
Full-text ACT Court of Appeal and Supreme Court judgments from 2002 are available on this website. For judgments prior to 2002 please contact the Russell Fox Library.
Judgments are generally published within a few days of being handed down, however, sentencing remarks may not be available until some time after sentencing. Please follow us on @ACTCourts Twitter if you want to be alerted about when judgments and sentences are published on the court website. Hard copy decisions can also be viewed in the Russell Fox Library.
Recent Court of Appeal, Supreme Court judgments and sentences: | |
|---|---|
Uploaded 17 June 2026 | DPP v Towney [2026] ACTSC 106 (SCC 223 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – joint commission aggravated robbery – victim home and assaulted in course of robbery – adjournments of sentencing proceedings to afford offender opportunity for rehabilitation – offender discharged from rehabilitation programs – full-time imprisonment required The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to imprisonment for joint commission aggravated robbery, to be suspended after 10 months. |
Uploaded 17 June 2026 | DPP v Heron [2025] ACTSC 492 (SCC 104 of 2025; SCC 105 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – multiple burglary, theft, unlawful possession and driving offences – whether offender eligible for treatment order – where extant parole order in New South Wales |
Uploaded 16 June 2026 | Australian National University v Lendlease Construction Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 143PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – Leave to file proposed reply – where third party argues reply introduces new claims of breach of contract – where proceedings ready for trial – where permitting new allegations at late stage would amount to significant prejudice to third party – where proceedings had been on foot for years and no clear explanation given as to why claims introduced at late stage – leave granted excluding new claims The Supreme Court has granted leave to file a proposed reply, excluding new claims of breach of contract. The proceedings were ready for trial and had been on foot for an extended period of time. In those circumstances, the court held that permitting new allegations would amount to significant prejudice to the third party concerned, who would have to mount a defence to these claims. |
Uploaded 16 June 2026 | LXS (a pseudonym) v ACT [2026] ACTSC 199CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – Application for leave to disclose and use protected confidences – mandatory considerations – balancing exercise – leave granted |
Uploaded 16 June 2026 | Carberry v Sentence Administration Board [2026] ACTSC 180ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – Application for judicial review of decision to refuse special parole – where Sentence Administration Board applied two-step test for determining special parole – where correct test is single question of whether Board is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances for early parole – where “for” must mean “that justify” – where error is conceded – decision set aside – Board directed to remake decision according to law – not open to court to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist for itself PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – HUMAN RIGHTS – Application for leave to intervene by ACT Human Rights Commissioner – where application is not opposed – where issues Commissioner seeks to raise not necessary to determine the proceedings – where intervention would delay the determination of the proceedings – held inappropriate to provide an advisory opinion by way of obiter dicta about the Sentence Administration Board’s future exercise of powers – application dismissed The Supreme Court has published reasons for setting aside a decision of the Sentence Administration Board to refuse the plaintiff’s special parole application and directing the Board to remake the decision according to law. The court set aside the decision on the basis that, as was conceded, the Board applied the incorrect test for determining special parole. The court also dismissed an application for leave to intervene made by the ACT Human Rights Commissioner on the basis that intervention was not necessary to determine the proceedings and would cause delay. |
Uploaded 16 June 2026 | DPP v Kan [2026] ACTSC 198CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment – judge alone verdict – not guilty – aggravated burglary – damage property – drive motor vehicle without consent – theft – joint commission – s 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – challenge to admissibility of police search evidence – body-worn cameras – crime scene powers – no systemic misuse – identification evidence – circumstantial case – CCTV footage – witness evidence – not found beyond reasonable doubt |
Uploaded 16 June 2026 | Anderson v Daramalan College Ltd [2026] ACTSC 163PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – Strike out application – where plaintiff granted extension of time to file reply – where plaintiff filed amended statement of claim more than seven days after defence filed, and did not subsequently file a reply – where defendant alleged failure to mark up amended statement of claim in accordance with r 509 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – whether pleadings had closed – claim struck out with costs The Supreme Court has struck out an amended statement of claim which was filed out of time and not marked up in accordance with the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). The plaintiff was granted an extension of time to file a reply. Before that extension had elapsed, but more than seven days after the filing of the defence, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim. No reply was ever filed. The plaintiff submitted that r 483(1)(a) of the Court Procedures Rules meant that pleadings remained open until the deadline to file a reply had elapsed. The defendant submitted that r 483(1)(a) was not enlivened, as no reply was ultimately filed. The defendant also argued that a strike out was justified by a failure to mark up the amended statement of claim in accordance with r 509. The court held that the amended statement of claim was filed out of time, and that leave of the court was therefore required. The court also noted the importance of parties complying with r 509 to ensure the efficient resolution of disputes. The court struck out the amended statement of claim with costs. |
Uploaded 15 June 2026 | Kovalenko (a pseudonym) v Garay (No 4) [2026] ACTSC 194CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – Order for costs following civil hearing – where plaintiff wholly successful in claim – defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs as agreed or assessed. CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – Application for stay of execution of costs –– application dismissed. |
Uploaded 12 June 2026 | DPP v Nash (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 197 (SCC 159 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated common assault – where the offender is a young person – where the offender struck the face of the victim – where the offender was found guilty by a jury - dismissal of charge |
Uploaded 12 June 2026 | Kovalenko (a pseudonym) v Garay (No 3) [2026] ACTSC 193CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Non-publication Orders – Pseudonyms assigned to plaintiff and defendant – whether pseudonyms should remain – where defendant’s name already published in criminal matter – pseudonym for plaintiff should remain – pseudonym for defendant vacated. |
Uploaded 12 June 2026 | Kovalenko (a pseudonym) v Garay (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 559TORTS – ASSAULT AND BATTERY – Child Sexual Abuse – where plaintiff claimed he was sexually abused by the defendant when the plaintiff was a child – where defendant convicted of child sex offences against the plaintiff – where defendant denied the offences – whether conviction certificate can be used as proof of sexual abuse – where plaintiff suffered from severe psychiatric harm including attempted suicide – where plaintiff had also suffered trauma due to his work as a police officer – extent to which psychiatric harm was caused by the abuse – plaintiff found to be credible and reliable – defendant found to be not credible – claim established – damages awarded The Supreme Court has awarded damages to a plaintiff for the torts of assault and battery committed by the defendant. The plaintiff’s claim was that the defendant had sexually abused him when he was a child. The defendant had previously been convicted for child sexual abuse of the plaintiff, however denied that he had abused the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that as a result of the abuse, he had suffered significant psychiatric harm and impact to his life. The Supreme Court found in favour of the plaintiff, and awarded the plaintiff damages of $704,836. |
Uploaded 12 June 2026 | Jolley v Construction Occupations Registrar (No 3) [2026] ACTSC 136PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – APPEAL – Judgments and orders – application for the dissolution of a stay – where stay granted pending appeal – where appeal subsequently discontinued – held within the power of the court to amend final orders so as to secure their effectiveness at the point where the stay is dissolved The Supreme Court has dissolved a stay and made consequential orders following the discontinuance of an appeal in a building and construction dispute. The appellant had a rectification order made against it following proceedings in the Supreme Court stayed during an appeal. The appellant subsequently filed a notice of discontinuance. The respondents then applied to the court to have the stay orders lifted, as consent was not given. The court held that it was within its power to lift the stay orders, and that the circumstances of the case justified doing so. |
Uploaded 10 June 2026 | DPP v Powell [2026] ACTSC 190 (SCC 376 of 2025; SCC 377 of 2025; SCC 145 of 2026)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary and theft offences – drive motor vehicle without consent – driving offences – trespass – residential rehabilitation program available – Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order imposed |
Uploaded 10 June 2026 | Belconnen Concrete Services Pty Ltd v Core Projects (ACT) Pty Ltd [2026] ACTSC 159APPEAL – APPEAL FROM ACT MAGISTRATES COURT – Default judgment – where defendant did not file a defence but debt and costs subject of cause of action paid in full prior to hearing – where magistrate declined to enter default judgment – held no utility in pronouncing a default judgment for a nil amount – appeal dismissed with costs The Supreme Court has published the reasons for dismissing an appeal from the Magistrates Court concerning a magistrate declining to enter default judgment after the debt and costs of the cause of action had been paid in full. The appellant commenced proceedings against the respondent debtor in the Magistrates Court through an originating claim. The respondent did not file a defence within 28 days following service of the claim, but paid the debt and an agreed amount for costs less than a week after this 28-day period. The appellant sought default judgment, arguing the respondent’s conduct fell within r 1117 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). The magistrate declined, holding that granting default judgment would be futile as there was no debt outstanding. The Supreme Court upheld the magistrate’s decision, holding that default judgment would have had no utility, and that the court need not exercise its discretion in the instant case where it was open for the parties to discontinue without orders as to costs. The court also emphasised the importance of interpreting the Court Procedures Rules in light of the main purpose of civil procedure provisions in s 5A of the Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT). |
Uploaded 9 June 2026 | DPP v Given (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 189 (SCC 1 of 2024; SCC 196 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated threat to kill – take motor vehicle without consent – family violence – child present – subjective circumstances involving drug addiction – mental health and compliance considerations – unsuitability for Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order – partially suspended sentence imposed |
Uploaded 5 June 2026 | DPP v Millhouse [2025] ACTSC 232CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – application to revoke bail – where accused breached multiple conditions of bail in an encounter with the complainant – whether there is a likelihood of the accused committing an offence or harassing or endangering the safety of a person or intimidating a witness |
Uploaded 5 June 2026 | DPP v Ayuel [2024] ACTSC 404CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pre-trial application to adduce tendency and coincidence evidence – arson – identification – circumstantial case – coincidence ‘anchor’ event – coincidence reasoning permitted – tendency reasoning not permitted – simplification of jury’s task |
Uploaded 5 June 2026 | DPP v Wren (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 163 (SCC 312 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – aggravated common assault – family violence offending involving sisters – Bugmy and Henry principles – prospects of rehabilitation – whether drug and alcohol treatment order suitable and appropriate – intensive support required to rehabilitate – parity principle – drug and alcohol treatment order imposed |
Uploaded 5 June 2026 | DPP v Benoit (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 183 (SCC 399 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – following trial by jury – found guilty of all counts – multiple counts of sexual and violent offending – family and domestic violence – “family like” relationship – same victim – offences occurring in the home and in the presence of children |
Uploaded 5 June 2026 | DPP v Bird (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 74 (SCC 323 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – family violence offences – aggravated burglary – aggravated common assault – contravene family violence order – young offender – serious example of contravene FVO offence – demonstrated depth of remorse – imprisonment – combination sentence imposed |
Uploaded 4 June 2026 | DPP v Hooper (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 22CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCE LIST – cancellation application – whether offender unwilling or unlikely to comply with conditions of treatment order – whether continuation of treatment and supervision component of treatment order unlikely to achieve the objects of the order – where residential rehabilitation available and supervision component of treatment order able to be extended to achieve objects of the order |
Uploaded 4 June 2026 | Gupta v Sharai Projects Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 152PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FREEZING ORDERS – Application to set aside or vary freezing order – where usual form of freezing order in practice note is too extensive for the situation – where defendants in Magistrates Court proceedings seeking to protect potential costs order of $15,000 – held more limited freezing order is appropriate – held orders for disclosure should remain – freezing order varied PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – TRANSFER TO MAGISTRATES COURT – Where matter is in substance an interlocutory application for the purposes of Magistrates Court proceedings – where application should have been made in Magistrates Court – matter transferred – order made restricting costs to the scale of costs that would have been applicable in the Magistrates Court The Supreme Court has published reasons for varying a freezing order and transferring a matter to the Magistrates Court. The freezing order was sought by defendants in a Magistrates Court proceeding to protect a potential costs order of approximately $15,000. The court found that a more limited freezing order than the usual form was appropriate for that situation. The court also found that the matter should be transferred to the Magistrates Court as it was effectively an interlocutory application for the purposes of the Magistrates Court proceeding. |
Uploaded 3 June 2026 | DPP v Carter (a pseudonym) (No 5) [2026] ACTSC 139CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for permanent stay of proceedings – where, at a trial, jury was discharged after being unable to reach verdicts – where accused is a young person with mental health conditions and is at risk of self-harm – where matter may be remitted to the Childrens Court – held charges not inherently complex and could be determined by a properly instructed jury if not remitted – held measures available to limit the impact of another trial on the accused’s mental health – held circumstances not so exceptional as to amount to an abuse of the court’s process or warrant a permanent stay – application dismissed The Supreme Court has dismissed an application for a permanent stay of criminal proceedings. The court found that, though the jury in a previous trial was discharged after being unable to reach verdicts, the charges were not inherently complex and could be determined by a properly instructed jury. The court also found that measures would be available to limit the impact of another trial on the accused’s mental health. Accordingly, the circumstances were not so exceptional as to warrant a permanent stay. |
Uploaded 3 June 2026 | DPP v Hooper [2025] ACTSC 164 (SCC 24 of 2024; 196 of 2024; SCC 212 of 2024; SCC 213 of 2024; SCC 262 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and punishment – Sentence – theft – conspiracy to money launder – participate in criminal group – drive stolen motor vehicle without consent – aggravated burglary – damage property – rolled up offending – some offending occurred while on conditional liberty – consideration of parity – assistance to authorities – limited criminal history – level of remorse and insight into offending – suitable for reparation order and referral to restorative justice – severe substance use disorder at time of offending – assessed as suitable for drug and alcohol treatment order – prospects of rehabilitation – some engagement with rehabilitative services while in custody – reduction in sentence for guilty pleas – no further action taken on breach – imprisonment and drug and alcohol treatment order imposed |
Uploaded 3 June 2026 | Baker (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 186CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – Application for leave to disclose and use protected confidences – defendants’ application – mandatory considerations – balancing exercise – leave granted |
Uploaded 3 June 2026 | Good Day Sunshine Pty Ltd v Bright Partners Management Group Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Bright Partners Unit Trust [2026] ACTSC 185PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PRELIMINARY DISCOVERY – Application for leave to proceed against company in liquidation – application for discovery of documents from prospective defendants – whether sufficient basis to show potential cause of action – whether reasonable inquiries made – whether reasonable grounds in believing documents to be in defendants possession – whether documents would be relevant to deciding to bring proceedings – leave granted – discovery ordered |
Uploaded 2 June 2026 | R v Palmer [2026] ACTSC 182 (SCC 172 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary in company – damage Commonwealth property by joint commission – breach of good behaviour order – reparation order sought – availability of residential rehabilitation program – recognizance release order imposed |
Uploaded 2 June 2026 | Charles v Davies (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 178CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Appeal – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – Sentence appeal – Whether sentence was manifestly excessive – Family violence offences – Driving offences |
Uploaded 2 June 2026 | DPP v Slattery (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 174 (SCC 100 of 2023; SCC 101 of 2023; SCC 339 of 2023; SCC 340 of 2023; SCC 46 of 2026)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach of a family violence order – use carriage service to harass – take vehicle without consent – reckless driving - offender previously successfully completed treatment and supervision part of drug and alcohol treatment order – drug and alcohol treatment order |
Uploaded 29 May 2026 | Budd v Mojel [2026] ACTSC 177CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – parking offences – Infringement notice offence – s 53AA Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT) – Person in possession or control – Validity of statutes – No constitutional issue – No breach of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in an appeal from conviction from the Magistrates Court. The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed. The convictions and sentences for two separate breaches of s 213K(1) of the Road Transport (Road Rules) Regulation 2017 (ACT). The relevant offending was parking in a ticket parking area without displaying a current parking ticket. |
Uploaded 29 May 2026 | DPP v Whitfield (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 176 (SCC 417 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated burglary – Aggravated robbery – Where the offender does not remember the offending – mental health conditions – Where the offender was found guilty following a Judge-alone trial – Criminal history The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a total of four years’ imprisonment for the offences of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery. |
Uploaded 29 May 2026 | DPP v Ali [2025] ACTCA 12Judgment summaryCRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Permanent stay of prosecution – whether a permanent stay is necessary to afford the accused the full benefit of his acquittal on a different charge The Court of Appeal has published a judgment allowing a prosecution appeal from the primary judge’s order permanently staying the trial of a charge against the accused. The prosecution was seeking to retry a charge in relation to which a jury had failed to reach a unanimous verdict. The primary judge found that the trial would be an abuse of process as it would call into question the accused’s acquittal on another charge. The court found that this did not amount to exceptional circumstances justifying the stay. |
Uploaded 29 May 2026 | R v Taylor [2026] ACTSC 175 (SCC 267 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated burglary in company – Damage Commonwealth property by joint commission – where the offender was subject to conditional liberty at the time of offending – recognizance release orders imposed |
Uploaded 29 May 2026 | DPP v Reid [2026] ACTSC 164 (SCC 62 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Pilot Circle Sentencing List – Elders and Respected Persons Panel – aggravated burglary – joint commission – disadvantaged childhood – application of Bugmy principles – remorse – parity considerations – family violence – opportunity for rehabilitation – suspended sentence imposed upon entering into a good behaviour order |
Uploaded 28 May 2026 | DPP v Murray [2026] ACTSC 172 (SCC 346 of 2024; SCC 347 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – act of indecency without consent – act of indecency in the third degree – finding that offender knew victim was not consenting – demonstrated remorse – good prospects of rehabilitation – purpose of ICOs – sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment – sentence to be served by way of ICOs. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for two counts of an act of indecency and one count of an act of indecency in the third degree. The offender was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, to be served by way of Intensive Corrections Orders. |
Uploaded 28 May 2026 | DPP v Percival [2026] ACTSC 169 (SCC 386 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm – no weapon – offender demanding drugs from victim – serious injuries to victim’s head – no finding of remorse – significant criminal history – long history of substance use – imprisonment The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to imprisonment for the offence of intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm. |
Uploaded 28 May 2026 | DPP v Kelly [2026] ACTSC 161 (SCC 240 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – child sex offences – three victims – persistent sexual abuse – act of indecency – power imbalance – elderly offender – ill health – early guilty plea – no finding of remorse – impact of delay in child sex abuse cases – course of conduct and rolled up charges – non-parole period to reflect purposes of sentencing and moral culpability The Supreme Court has sentenced an elderly offender to 10 years and 6 months imprisonment for child sex offences against three victims. |
Uploaded 28 May 2026 | DPP v Coghlan [2026] ACTSC 173 (SCC 93 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 – where the offender was on conditional liberty at the time of offending – Bugmy principle – overwhelming prosecution case The Supreme Court has convicted and sentenced an offender to a term of imprisonment of four years, two months and ten days for one count of sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16. The offender had a criminal history and was subject to provisional liberty at the time of offending. The present offending was found to be far more serious than the offender’s previous offending and the court took into account the offender’s history of disadvantage. |
Uploaded 28 May 2026 | LP7 v Law Society (ACT) (No 2) [2026] ACTSCFC 2PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Costs of appeal against decision of Law Society under s 81 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT) – where appellant was successful in appeal against decision not to renew practising certificate – where court found appellant breached fiduciary obligations and acted inappropriately – in the circumstances, findings do not warrant departure from general rule that costs follow the event – question of breach of fiduciary obligations not so dominant or separable as to warrant apportionment of costs between issues – gross sum costs order The Full Court of the Supreme Court has made a gross sum costs order in favour of an appellant who successfully appealed against a decision of the Law Society not to renew his practising certificate. The court found that the circumstances did not warrant a departure from the general rule that costs follow the event. While the court had found that the appellant had breached fiduciary obligations, that issue was not so dominant or separable as to warrant apportionment of costs between issues. |
Uploaded 26 May 2026 | Iravani v ACT [2026] ACTSC 168CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – Application for leave to issue subpoenas nunc pro tunc – where material has already been produced – mandatory considerations in granting leave – plaintiff’s application – leave granted |
Uploaded 25 May 2026 | DPP v Cameron [2026] ACTSC 166 (SCC 70 of 2025; SCC 71 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Dangerous Driving – drive stolen vehicle – drive at police – escape arrest – sell or supply a drug of independence – drive while disqualified – pleas of guilty – whether overwhelming case – whether previously suspended sentence should be imposed – whether drug and alcohol treatment order should be made The Supreme Court has convicted and sentenced an offender to a term of imprisonment for 4 years, 2 months and 22 days, for various driving offences committed over the course of one day, as well as cancelling a previously suspended sentence and imposing the remainder of the 1 year and 2 months term of imprisonment for similar offending. As the offender had spent 609 days in custody, the remainder of the sentence was partially suspended pursuant to a drug and alcohol treatment order. |
Uploaded 25 May 2026 | M Johnson Building Pty Ltd v O’Toole (No 2) [2026] ACTCA 16COSTS – where appellant partially succeeded on appeal but lost on dominant issue – each party to pay own costs |
Uploaded 25 May 2026 | DPP v Kata [2026] ACTSC 150CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Application by accused to adduce evidence of prior sexual history of the complainant – s 76 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 – application related to previous sexual history between the complainant and the accused – leave required under s 76 – leave granted. |
Uploaded 25 May 2026 | Manny v ACT [2026] ACTCA 13JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – APPEAL – Application to expedite hearing of application for leave to appeal – whether applicant had such a limited life expectancy as would warrant expedition – where applicant declined to have application for leave to appeal heard on the papers – where expedition of hearing of leave to appeal would not substantially impact timing of underlying proceedings if applicant successful – held evidence did not disclose sufficient basis for expedition – application dismissed The Court of Appeal has dismissed an application to expedite the hearing of an application for leave to appeal from the Supreme Court. The applicant had a number of Supreme Court proceedings against the Territory dismissed. Seeking leave to appeal from these dismissals, the applicant argued that expedition was warranted on the basis of, among other things, poor health and the risk of homelessness. The Court held that the evidence did not disclose that the applicant was facing an imminent risk of death before his application for leave to appeal could be heard. The Court considered that the risk of homelessness was not sufficient in itself to justify a grant of expedition. The Court also noted that expedition of the application for leave to appeal would not be likely to expedite the underlying proceedings |
Uploaded 25 May 2026 | DPP v Brown [2026] ACTSC 162 (SCC 306 of 2024; SCC 307 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – property damage – Bugmy and Verdins principles – Griffiths Remand The Supreme Court has ordered a Griffiths remand for a period of six months for an offender convicted of property damage and joint commission aggravated burglary. Bugmy and Verdins principles were engaged, and the offender had been on bail in the community for an extended period of time without reoffending in a substantial or similar way. |
Uploaded 25 May 2026 | F1 Solutions Pty Ltd v Rodda Rae Pty Ltd [2026] ACTSC 133CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for leave for officer of corporation to start and carry on proceeding on behalf of corporation – where proposed claim likely to involve complex legal issues and substantial questions as to scope of disclosure – where officer likely to be a witness of significance – where no evidence of impecuniosity – application dismissed The Supreme Court has dismissed an application for an officer of a corporation to start and carry on a proceeding on behalf of two plaintiff corporations. The court found that it was not appropriate for a non-lawyer to represent the corporations in circumstances where the proposed claim is likely to involve complex legal issues and substantial questions as to the scope of disclosure, the officer is likely to be a witness of significance and there is no evidence of impecuniosity. |
Uploaded 22 May 2026 | DPP v Young [2026] ACTSC 160 (SCC 434 of 2024; SCC 435 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – theft and dangerous driving offences – robbery – damage property – where offender sustained head injury while in presentence custody – whether partially suspended sentence now more appropriate The Supreme Court has convicted and sentenced a 41-year-old offender to a partially suspended term of imprisonment of almost 2 years, for offending that included taking a Three Mills Bakery van without consent, dangerous driving, and a separate robbery at a Priceline Pharmacy. The offender was a First Nations man with a history of disadvantage and other cognitive and mental health challenges and had spent a significant period of time in custody prior to being released on bail. The sentence was suspended from the date of imposition. |
Uploaded 22 May 2026 | Civil & Civic Corporation Pty Ltd v Nova Builders Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] ACTCA 14Judgment summaryAPPEAL – CIVIL LAW – Restitution – mistaken payment – unjust enrichment – quantum meruit – elements for claim for restitution for mistaken payment – whether “unjustness” a separate and essential element beyond the fact of mistake – whether payee required to be enriched at the expense of the payer – where general manager had made representations to pay third party company – where payment made under belief that joint venture existed – whether payment vitiated by mistake where joint venture found not to exist APPEAL – CIVIL LAW – Estoppel – estoppel by representation – ostensible authority – assumptions under the Corporations Act –operation of estoppel – whether estoppel operates to the benefit of a person who is not a party to a quantum meruit claim – whether existence of ostensible authority prevents factual mistake – whether consent vitiated where ostensible authority found The Court of Appeal has by majority dismissed an appeal from a ruling requiring restitution for mistaken payment and payment for quantum meruit. The majority held that High Court authority established that once a vitiating factor was made out and found to be causative of the mistaken payment, a plaintiff need not prove any additional “unjustness”. The Court held that the First Respondent’s economic position was irrelevant where the payment was found to be a mistake unless the Appellant wished to plead a positive defence. |
Uploaded 22 May 2026 | ND v Coroner’s Court of the ACT [2026] ACTCA 15APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay application – where primary judge dismissed application for judicial review of Coroner’s decisions – where appellant seeks interlocutory orders preserving the body of deceased child pending an appeal – where body has been, at all relevant times, in the custody of persons not the subject of the proceedings – held stay of primary judge’s orders would not have any relevant effect – held interlocutory orders directed only to the Coroner would be ineffective – held grounds of appeal lack sufficient merit to warrant interlocutory relief – application dismissed A single judge of the Court of Appeal has dismissed an interlocutory application for orders preserving the body of a deceased person pending an appeal and a stay of orders of the primary judge. The court found that interlocutory orders directed to the coroner would be ineffective as the coroner does not have custody of the body. The court also found that a stay of the primary judge’s orders would have no relevant effect as it would be a stay of a dismissal. |
Uploaded 21 May 2026 | Burgess v Hardman [2026] ACTSC 158PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM – Where parties required to comply with procedures before commencing proceedings – whether non-compliance established – whether there is an urgent need to commence proceedings – lack of forensic diligence in resolving claim – leave granted to commence proceedings |
Uploaded 21 May 2026 | Pani v Allison [2026] ACTSC 157FAMILY PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE – ADDITIONAL PROVISION – Alleged insufficient share for proper maintenance, education and advancement in life – settlement between parties reached – court approves settlement – further provision from residue of the estate made |
Uploaded 21 May 2026 | R v Oldman (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 394CRIMINAL LAW – FITNESS TO PLEAD – Traumatic brain injury as a result of motor vehicle accident – competing expert opinions – relatively straightforward trial – role of lawyers in assisting accused – accused found fit to plead – s 311 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) The Supreme Court has found an accused fit to plead to a charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The man had previously suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident. In deciding, the court took into account the competing expert opinions, the relatively straightforward nature of the charge and the trial, and the role of lawyers in assisting the accused. |
Uploaded 21 May 2026 | MQ (a pseudonym) v ACT [2026] ACTSC 154CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – Application for leave to disclose protected confidences – mandatory considerations in granting leave – counselling communication – documents inspected by court – plaintiff consents to disclosure – leave granted |
Uploaded 20 May 2026 | CN v ACT [2026] ACTSC 151CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – Application for leave to disclose and rely on protected confidences – mandatory considerations in granting leave – counselling communications – court inspection conducted – plaintiff’s application – leave granted |
Uploaded 20 May 2026 | DPP v Bradley [2024] ACTSC 220CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail – application for bail pending outcome of criminal proceedings – where applicant became a father while in custody – where applicant has significant protective factors and familial support – consideration of s 22(3)(c) Bail Act 1992 (ACT) – consideration of risk of interference, intimidation, or obstruction |
Uploaded 20 May 2026 | Manuel v Hellenic Club of Canberra [2026] ACTSC 131CIVIL LAW – NEGLIGENCE – Personal injury – injury suffered in foyer of building – whether plaintiff tripped on cracked tile – where plaintiff a reliable witness – whether defendants are liable for the injury suffered by the plaintiff – consideration of damages CIVIL LAW – CIVIL PROCEDURE – Expert evidence – where expert evidence based on assumptions not proved – extent of reliance on expert evidence |
Uploaded 20 May 2026 | R v Oldman (a pseudonym) (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 524 (SCC 303 of 2022)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – cause grievous bodily harm – criminality characterised by excessive force in self-defence – excellent prospects of rehabilitation – offender convicted and sentenced to 6 months and 9 days of imprisonment suspended immediately upon entering into a good behaviour order for a period of 18 months |
Uploaded 19 May 2026 | NTD (a pseudonym) v ACT [2026] ACTSC 149CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – Application for leave to disclose protected confidences – mandatory considerations in granting leave – counselling communication – documents inspected by court – plaintiff consents to disclosure – leave granted |
Uploaded 19 May 2026 | DPP v Armstrong [2026] ACTSC 148CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – Section 9D, Bail Act 1992 (ACT) – special or exceptional circumstances – residential rehabilitation program – previous breaches of bail – family violence offending – bail application dismissed |
Uploaded 15 May 2026 | DPP v Parker [2026] ACTSC 146 (SCC 328 of 2025; SCC 329 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary and theft offences – take motor vehicle without consent – trespass – damage property – significant period of pre-sentence custody – availability of residential rehabilitation program – Drug and Alcohol Treatment order made. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender with social and cultural disadvantage considerations to a total effective term of imprisonment for 4 years, 7 months and 17 days, for numerous burglary, theft, stolen vehicle, trespass and damage property offences. In addition, the Court imposed the remaining term of an earlier sentence that had been suspended, which was almost a year. The offender had spent significant time in pre-sentence custody, enabling the remaining time to be served by way of a drug and alcohol treatment order. |
Uploaded 15 May 2026 | DPP v Elliott [2026] ACTSC 144 (SCC 134 of 2025; SCC 135 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary and aggravated burglary offences – drive motor vehicle without consent – obtain property by deception – possess ammunition – unlawful possession – whether s 12A of the Crimes Sentencing Act applies – whether Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order appropriate The Supreme Court has convicted and sentenced an offender to a total effective term of imprisonment of five years, one month and three days for burglary, driving and other offences. At issue was whether the four-year limit in s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) applies to sentences that, due to time spent in pre-sentence custody, have been fully served by the date of imposition. The Court found that the limit does not apply to those sentences. |
Uploaded 12 May 2026 | R v Bolton (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 137 (SCC 102 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach of Recognisance Release Order – where nature of breach was further offending of low objective seriousness which had been separately sentenced – recognisance extended |
Uploaded 11 May 2026 | Ferguson v ACT Integrity Commission (No 3) [2026] ACTSC 37PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Where plaintiff brought proceedings seeking prerogative and statutory relief and tortious damages – where application for interim injunction dismissed – where plaintiff subsequently filed an application for leave to discontinue the proceedings on the basis that there be no order as to costs – whether supervening events rendered the proceedings unnecessary or futile – whether plaintiff’s discontinuance reflects a capitulation or surrender The Supreme Court has published the reasons for granting leave to discontinue and a costs order against the plaintiff in an administrative and personal injury dispute. The plaintiff’s mobile phone was seized by the Integrity Commission as part of an investigation. The plaintiff applied for, and was not granted, interlocutory relief restricting the Commission from analysing data on his mobile phone. The plaintiff subsequently applied for leave to discontinue without an order as to costs. The Court held that failure to obtain interlocutory relief did not render the proceedings futile, finding that the application was best characterised as a “surrender”. The Court considered that the defendant had not acted unreasonably, and that the bulk of costs arose from the interlocutory application where the plaintiff failed to attain relief. |
Uploaded 8 May 2026 | DPP v Smith [2026] ACTSC 125CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail – application for bail – whether s 9D of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) applies – where New South Wales criminal history relates to applicant for bail – where New South Wales charge “outstanding” at the time of ACT offence – where a “serious offence” under s 9D includes a New South Wales offence – s 9D found to apply – held no special or exceptional circumstances – application dismissed CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judicial comity – whether single judge should follow a decision of another single judge of the same court – where, in 2015, a single judge interpreted “serious offence” in s 9D to include an interstate offence – where that interpretation was reasonably open and has stood for 10 years – held earlier decision should be followed CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Referral to Full Court – whether question should be referred to the Full Court – held more efficient for single judge to determine matter as Full Court decision would not occur earlier than decision on appeal from single judge’s decision The Supreme Court dismissed a bail application on the basis that s 9D of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) applied and no special or exceptional circumstances existed favouring the grant of bail. The court followed a decision of Refshauge J in 2015 which interpreted “serious offence” in s 9D of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) to include an interstate offence. The court also declined to refer the question of whether to follow this decision to the Full Court. |
Uploaded 8 May 2026 | ND v Coroner’s Court of the Australian Capital Territory [2026] ACTSC 134CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Coroners Court – Judicial review – Merits review – Where the applicant requested a second post-mortem examination |
Uploaded 8 May 2026 | Susa v ACT Planning and Land Authority (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 132PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Whether Hardiman principle applicable – where plaintiffs attained relief – where bulk of proceedings dealt with grounds where the plaintiffs were not successful – where active defendants are public authorities – where second defendant’s conduct confined and consistent with assisting the court to properly determine the plaintiffs’ claim – held unnecessary to explore application of Hardiman principle – partial costs order between plaintiff and first defendant – no costs order between plaintiff and second defendant The Supreme Court has published the reasons for making costs orders. The first defendant was ordered to pay 50% of the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceedings against it, while no order as to costs was made against the second defendant. The defendants submitted that there should be no costs order as they had abided by the Hardiman principle. The court made a partial costs order against the first defendant on the basis that it had acted as an adversarial party. |
Uploaded 8 May 2026 | Al Araja v Snell [2026] ACTSC 130APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from Magistrates Court – forcible confinement, common assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and property damage – appeal from conviction – where complainant found to give unreliable evidence – whether finding of guilt unreasonable APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from Magistrates Court – whether magistrate erred in not giving herself a Liberato direction – whether Liberato direction required when tried by judicial officer – where defendant did no more than make a bare denial of the allegations relevant to the appeal – where magistrate repeatedly referred to the legal principle that the prosecution needed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt – held no requirement to give Liberato direction where onus of proof is understood by the trier of facts The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in an appeal from conviction from the Magistrates Court. The appeal was allowed in part, and two convictions for common assault were set aside. The remaining convictions for forcible confinement, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and damage property were upheld. Acting Justice Berman found that the complainant’s credibility was such that the appellant should only have been found guilty of charges which were corroborated by independent evidence. |
Uploaded 8 May 2026 | Qiu v Zhang [2026] ACTSC 129REAL PROPERTY – CAVEATS – Application to extend caveats – asserted equitable interest in property – resulting trust – tenants in common – whether a serious question to be tried – where the balance of convenience lies – caveats extended PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SECURITY FOR COSTS – Application for security for costs – plaintiff’s visa expiring – self-represented litigant – self-represented litigant cannot recover costs – application refused |
Uploaded 8 May 2026 | DPP v Marriott [2026] ACTSC 126 (SCC 397 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm – intensive correction order – sexually transmitted infection The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to an intensive correction order for recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The offender lied when the victim asked him whether he had any sexually transmitted infections and the victim was later diagnosed with HSV-2. |
Uploaded 7 May 2026 | DPP v Carroll (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 128CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – persistent sexual abuse of a child or young person under special care |
Uploaded 7 May 2026 | Bye v Hend (No 3) [2026] ACTSC 75CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – personal injury – where injury not established and judgment entered in favour of defendants – defendants seeking special costs order – where plaintiff received advice as to poor prospects of success – where defendants made multiple offers of compromise |
Uploaded 7 May 2026 | Breust v Anderson (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 32PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Gross sum costs order – where plaintiff seeks costs orders on a more favourable basis than was previously ordered – where defendant did not appear in proceedings – where trustee appointed to sell property the subject of proceedings – where trustee and plaintiff costs not unreasonable in the circumstances – where unreasonableness of the defendant’s overall course of conduct makes it appropriate for the plaintiff to recover costs on an indemnity basis – where prospect of defendant engaging with the costs assessment process is negligible The Supreme Court has published the reasons for a gross sum costs order made against a defendant in a property dispute. The plaintiff accrued water utility and rate debts as she was the registered joint proprietor of the defendant’s residence, the parties having formerly been in a relationship. Proceedings were brought to sell the home to discharge these debts, with a trustee appointed to undertake the sale. The defendant did not appear in the proceedings. The Court ordered a gross sum costs order against the defendant to be paid on an indemnity basis. The Court found that the trustee and plaintiff’s costs were not unreasonable in the circumstances, while the unreasonableness of the defendant’s overall course of conduct made it appropriate for the plaintiff to recover costs on an indemnity basis. The Court also found the prospect of the defendant engaging with the costs assessment process to be negligible. |
Uploaded 6 May 2026 | Mason-Leonarder v Balfran Removals Pty Ltd (No 3) [2026] ACTSC 76CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – Calderbank Offer – reasonableness of rejection of offer |
Uploaded 6 May 2026 | Heaven Builders Pty Ltd v Moustafa (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 104APPEAL – CIVIL LAW – Costs – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – dispute over payment for painting stage and variations to contract – breach of contract – where previous offers of settlement were made – Calderbank offers – interest to be paid |
Uploaded 5 May 2026 | DPP v Nicholls (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 120 (SCC 73 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Breach of good behaviour order – conditions to engage in culturally appropriate services – supervision – mental health – offender’s trauma background |
Uploaded 5 May 2026 | Nicholls (a pseudonym) v Special Magistrate Richter and the Chief Police Officer of the Australian Federal Police [2026] ACTSC 122JUDICIAL REVIEW – DECISION OF A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE – Intimate Forensic Procedure Order – where review concerns making of final order – whether method of performing procedure relevant to making of final order – nature of consent required – no error found – human rights implications – use of judicial discretion – originating application dismissed |
Uploaded 5 May 2026 | Gupta v Sharai Projects Pty Ltd [2026] ACTSC 123PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FREEZING ORDERS – Ex parte application – where proceedings ongoing in Magistrates Court – where decision in Magistrates Court is reserved – sufficient prospects of a good arguable case – real risk assets of the respondent will dissipate – freezing order made |
Uploaded 5 May 2026 | DPP v Broers [2026] ACTSC 118 (SCC 384 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – inflict grievous bodily harm and common assault – assault occurred in nightclub – young offender – good prospects of rehabilitation – cooperation with police – early guilty plea – ADHD diagnosis and moral culpability The Supreme Court has sentenced a 19-year-old offender to a suspended sentence and good behaviour order for a nightclub assault. The offender cooperated with police, pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and was found to be genuinely remorseful. |
Uploaded 5 May 2026 | Tongue v Corey (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 119CRIMINAL APPEAL – aggravated common assault – element of consent – whether lawful excuse – whether grabbing a person’s face and yelling aggressively was conduct falling within implied consent to physical contact occurring from exigences of everyday life – error of law established – residual discretion considered – matter remitted |
Uploaded 1 May 2026 | DPP v Budd [2026] ACTSC 109CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – review of decision to make bail order – relevant jurisdiction to make bail order – whether the s 19A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) criteria are established – failure to establish a relevant risk – substantial risk – power to make a bail order – no basis to require the accused to be subject to bail – order made to continue bail revoked |
Uploaded 29 April 2026 | DPP v Bender (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 115CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction – Remittal of matter to Childrens Court after committal for trial – where no express statutory power of remittal – whether inherent jurisdiction of the Court allows remittal – whether in the interests of justice to remit – matter remitted to Childrens Court for sentence The Supreme Court has published reasons for an order made remitting a matter to the Childrens Court for sentence. The young person had been committed for trial in the Supreme Court, but, following entry of a plea of guilty, sought that the proceedings be remitted to the Childrens Court for sentence. This order was not opposed by the prosecution. The Court held that such an order could be made pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The Court held that it was in the interests of justice for the order to be made. |
Uploaded 29 April 2026 | Registrar of the ACT Magistrates Court v Maunsell [2026] ACTSCFC 1Judgment SummaryPRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Special Case – Case stated under s 267 of the Magistrates Court Act – whether appropriate to answer questions referred by Magistrates Court - where questions did not reflect text of statute – where questions did not raise the issue that arose in the proceedings – whether power to reformulate questions referred – need for expeditious conduct of contempt proceedings - questions inappropriate to answer The Full Court of the Supreme Court has found that two questions which had been referred from the Magistrates Court were inappropriate to answer as they did not reflect the text of the legislation, and they did not directly address the key dispute in the proceedings. |
Uploaded 29 April 2026 | DPP v Cohen [2026] ACTSC 114 (SCC 117 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse without consent – where the offender was reckless as to whether the victim was consenting |
Uploaded 29 April 2026 | Singh v Clarke [2026] ACTSC 113CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – Appeal against conviction |
Uploaded 29 April 2026 | DPP v Lloyd (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 110 (SCC 126 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated sexual intercourse with a child under 10 – therapeutic correction order – young offender |
Uploaded 28 April 2026 | DPP v Kaye (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 111 (SCC 315 of 2024; SCC 316 of 2024; SCC 284 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – young person – breach of good behaviour order – previous sentences discharged under s 38 of the CSA |
Uploaded 24 April 2026 | DPP v Winters [2026] ACTSC 83 (SCC 202 of 2025; SCC 203 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – driving offences – offending breached good behaviour order and offender resentenced – extensive criminal history – profound disadvantage – rehabilitation the best community protection – unusual circumstances – demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation – offender working towards restoration of young son who is currently in care – full-time imprisonment would jeopardise this progress – suspended sentence The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a suspended sentence for driving offences. |
Uploaded 24 April 2026 | In the Estate of Georgina Price Bailey [2026] ACTSC 108SUCCESSION – WILLS, PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION – Application for passing of accounts – where applicant dissatisfied with increased legal expenses drawn from estate – where previous deed of settlement precluded future claim – application dismissed |
Uploaded 24 April 2026 | Rankin v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2026] ACTSC 107PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – APPLICATION – Application to compel an injured claimant to provide further information under s 64 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) – whether the Court should enforce compliance with obligation to give information – no enforcement absent relevant non-compliance – form of verified statement – no verified statement required |
Uploaded 22 April 2026 | Commissioner for ACT Revenue v O’Neill [2026] ACTSC 105TAXES AND DUTIES – LANDHOLDER DUTY – Share transactions – trustee company – whether a “relevant acquisition” was made – discretion to permit a person to reacquire shares –– statutory construction of “securing”, “financial accommodation” and “part of a process” – exemption applied ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – OPERATION AND EFFECT OF STATUTES – Repeal of legislation – whether a right accrued despite repealing legislation – right to administrative review accrued |
Uploaded 21 April 2026 | DPP v Dunlop (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 96 (SCC 188 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated threat to kill another person – contravene family violence order – disadvantaged childhood – reduced moral culpability – limited criminal history – sentenced to a term of imprisonment suspended upon entering into a good behaviour order |
Uploaded 21 April 2026 | DPP v Anderson [2026] ACTSC 101 (SCC 221 of 2025; SCC 301 of 2025; SCC 114 of 2026)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – multiple theft, burglary and unlawful possession of stolen property offences – whether drug and alcohol treatment order appropriate – where lengthy period of pre-sentence custody and drug rehabilitation already undertaken |
Uploaded 21 April 2026 | Geha Enterprises Pty Ltd v Deuteronomy 28 Investments Pty Ltd and Registrar General of the ACT [2026] ACTSC 103CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for leave representation by an officer or employee of the corporation – where officer holds legal qualifications – use of generative AI in submissions – leave refused |
Uploaded 20 April 2026 | In the matter of the adoption of Geniene Alissa Webster [2026] ACTSC 102ADOPTION – ADULT ADOPTION – Application for adoption – evidence of relationship between proposed adopted and proposed adoptive parent – good reputation of proposed adoptive parent – consent of proposed adoptee given – adoption order made |
Uploaded 20 April 2026 | AB v Director-General, Health and Community Services Directorate [2026] ACTSC 58PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – Application to be released from implied undertaking in Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280 – where psychological report prepared at the request of offender’s solicitors to be tendered in Supreme Court sentencing proceedings – where offender seeks to use report in Childrens Court proceedings – party who produced report is entitled to use it however they wish – document is in public domain once in evidence – application not necessary and dismissed The Supreme Court has dismissed an application to be released from the implied undertaking in Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280 in relation to a psychological report prepared for Supreme Court proceedings. The court found that the application was not necessary as the undertaking did not apply to the party who had produced the report. In addition, once put into evidence, the report would be in the public domain and not subject to the undertaking. |
Uploaded 17 April 2026 | DPP v Majok (No 3) [2026] ACTSC 28 (SCC 215 of 2024; SCC 216 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breaches of good behaviour orders – history of breaches – where breaches a result of drink-driving and driving while licence suspended convictions – where sentencing magistrate would have taken into account that offender was on conditional liberty – where sentencing magistrate maintained structure of sentence with short non-parole period, so that Sentence Administration Board is to make judgment as to suitability for release – no relevant sentencing purpose would be advanced by taking action in that context – court takes no further action The Supreme Court has published the reasons for sentence of an offender who breached good behaviour orders by drink-driving and driving while his licence was suspended. The court took no further action, finding that any action would advance no relevant sentencing purpose because the purposes of sentencing were being adequately met by the existing sentences of imprisonment and the remaining periods of good behaviour orders. |
Uploaded 17 April 2026 | Danthanarayana v Fogarty & Ronald [2026] ACTSC 99LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – COSTS – appeal – solicitors seeking recovery of unpaid fees through costs assessment under Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT) – where multiple matters – whether solicitor complied with initial and ongoing disclosure obligations for each matter – whether amounts charged fair and reasonable having regard to materiality of statutory non-compliance – whether interest payable from a time before costs assessed The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal of a costs assessment, setting aside a costs agreement following a material non-disclosure in circumstances of complex litigation and instead assessing costs between the solicitor and client on a fair and reasonable basis. |
Uploaded 17 April 2026 | Le Messurier v Sporco Investments Pty Ltd [2026] ACTSC 98APPEAL – CONTRACT – GUARANTEE – where director signed personal guarantee indemnifying losses arising from company’s failure to pay rent or breach of lease agreement – where company leased further commercial premises – whether guarantee discharged by entry into subsequent lease – whether subsequent lease varied or replaced original lease APPEAL – TORTS – TRESPASS – continuing trespass where company failed to remove waste from premises following termination of commercial lease – whether director of company was a joint tortfeasor – whether director had a close personal connection so as to jointly procure the tort The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal from the Magistrates Court concerning whether a director of a company in liquidation was liable to pay for the former landlord’s losses (in repairs, waste removal and lost rent) following the company’s leases of commercial premises in Fyshwick being terminated. The director had been found liable partly under a personal guarantee and partly on the basis of joint trespass. The court upheld the findings of the Magistrates Court on both grounds. |
Uploaded 16 April 2026 | DPP v Hilton (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 526 (SCC 144 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – persistent sexual abuse of a child – offender and victim met online – offender initially unaware of victim’s age – relationship continued after offender learnt victim’s age – where victim was highly vulnerable – where offender faced physical and mental health issues – sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment – sentence fully suspended upon entry into a Good Behaviour Order with stringent conditions |
Uploaded 16 April 2026 | DPP v Hilton (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 525CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – admissibility of victim impact statement of the victim’s mother – role of the prosecution in advising victims of the proper scope of victim impact statements |
Uploaded 16 April 2026 | Chapman v TD (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 97APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Prosecution Appeal – appeal against sentence of the magistrate – family violence – failure to assess objective seriousness – factual error – manifest inadequacy – where grounds c and b are not made out – where manifest inadequacy found – residual discretion – decision to intervene – appeal allowed |
Uploaded 16 April 2026 | DPP v Kelleher [2026] ACTSC 89 (SCC 376 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – supply anabolic steroids – supply declared substance – traffic in large commercial quantity of a controlled drug – fail to comply with an order under s 3LA – money laundering – possess a prohibited weapon – sophisticated drug syndicate – mid-level role within the operation – significant degree of remorse – very good prospects of rehabilitation – application of parity principles – reduction in moral culpability – compelling subjective circumstances – consideration of hardship on offender’s family – non-parole period justifiably outside of the ‘usual’ range – offender sentenced to full time imprisonment for a period of 4 years 11 months and 12 days |
Uploaded 15 April 2026 | The Owners – Units Plan No 4321 v Victory Homes Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 38PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – Amendment to pleadings – application for leave to file second further amended statement of claim – amendment for the purpose of deciding the real issues in the proceeding – amendments refine existing case and do not constitute a new cause of action – even if amendments include a new cause of action, they are appropriate and the new cause of action arises out of substantially the same facts as the earlier pleaded claims – leave granted – defendants who opposed amendment to pay the plaintiff’s costs from the date of the application The Supreme Court has granted leave to the plaintiff to file a second further amended statement of claim. The court found that the amendments were for the purpose of deciding the real issues in the proceeding and did not constitute a new cause of action. The court also made costs orders, including an order requiring the defendants who opposed the amendments to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application for leave. |
Uploaded 15 April 2026 | DPP v Mastalerz (No 3) [2026] ACTSC 65 (SCC 146 of 2023; SCC 101 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Resentence following remittal by Court of Appeal – where offender committed acts of serious family violence – offending while subject to family violence order and bail conditions precluding him from contacting the victim – high range of objective seriousness for the sexual offences and varying levels for assault, property damage and family violence order contraventions – negative family upbringing – prior criminal history – plea of guilty three weeks before trial – general deterrence important – reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – sentenced to imprisonment The Supreme Court has published the reasons for the resentence of an offender charged with aggravated sexual intercourse without consent, multiple contraventions of a family violence order, aggravated common assault and aggravated minor property damage. The Court’s initial sentence of 10 years and 1 month imprisonment was quashed by the Court of Appeal because a relevant psychological report was not put before the sentencing judge. The two rolled up counts of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent carried a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for each charge, while the other offences that the offender was charged with had maximum penalties in the range of three to five years. The offender was resentenced to 111 months’ imprisonment upon the court’s consideration of the offender’s negative family upbringing (engaging R v Bugmy principles), prior criminal history and rehabilitation prospects. General deterrence and a late plea of guilty were also factors in the sentence arrived at by the Court. |
Uploaded 14 April 2026 | Tiffen v Madders [2024] ACTCA 41CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Non-publication orders – where informant in criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Appeal charged with criminal offences arising out of the events the subject of the appeal – risk of prejudice to defendant in defence of criminal charges against him – where both parties consent to the making of non-publication orders |
Uploaded 14 April 2026 | Molonglo Construction Group Pty Ltd v Mehta and Mehta (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 92CIVIL LAW – DISCOVERY – Application for the production of further documents – reliance on affidavit evidence – where issues raised not dealt with in pleadings – where discovery to date is not inadequate – application dismissed |
Uploaded 14 April 2026 | van Rensburg v ACT [2026] ACTSC 95PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SERVICE – extension of time to serve expert evidence – whether plaintiff can rely on expert evidence served out of time – whether any prejudice caused by the delay – leave granted to extend time and serve expert evidence |
Uploaded 14 April 2026 | DPP v Hilton [2025] ACTSC 422CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – guilty plea to indictable offence – application of s 22(2) of the Bail Act – where offender has spent more than a year in presentence custody – where mental health treatment better addressed in community prior to sentence – bail granted |
Uploaded 14 April 2026 | DPP v Brown [2026] ACTSC 90 (SCC 99 of 2025; SCC 415 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Pilot Circle Sentencing List – Elders and Respected Persons Panel – joint commission aggravated burglary – joint commission theft – aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – offending on conditional liberty – parity principles – Bugmy considerations – reduction in moral culpability – period of imprisonment imposed suspended upon entering into a good behaviour order |
Uploaded 10 April 2026 | DPP v Bradley (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 93 (SCC 8 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Pilot Circle Sentencing List — Elders and Respected Persons Panel – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – where offending was the result of provocation – genuine remorse – hardship in custody – sentenced to 24 months of full-time imprisonment |
Uploaded 8 April 2026 | Tipping v Meas (by his litigation guardian Adcock) [2026] ACTCA 12Judgment SummaryAPPEAL – CIVIL LAW – Damages – where negligence admitted – assessment of damages – where plaintiff suffered permanent brain injury as an infant – whether primary judge erred in failing to make due allowance for possibility of future improvement – whether primary judge erred in including a buffer for the cost of a “buddy” in assessing damages for future attendant care – whether primary judge erred in including allowances for pet ownership and a personal trainer in assessing damages for future out-of-pocket expenses – funds management – whether primary judge erred in making allowance for the plaintiff’s damages to be managed over his lifetime by a trustee The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal in part in respect of damages awarded in a negligence claim. The respondent suffered a permanent brain injury in a car accident caused by the appellant. The appellant admitted negligence and the matter proceeded as an assessment of damages. The appellant disputed the damages awarded by the primary judge, stating it did not reflect the possibility of the respondent’s situation improving. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument but concluded that the allowance for pet ownership should not be awarded to the respondent. |
Uploaded 8 April 2026 | HM (a pseudonym) v MN (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 91APPEAL – FAMILY VIOLENCE ORDER – Appeal against a decision of the Magistrates Court – refusal to grant family violence order – whether procedural fairness afforded to applicant – appeal dismissed |
Uploaded 7 April 2026 | DPP v Dunn (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 88 (SCC 215 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary – extensive criminal history – institutionalisation of the offender |
Uploaded 7 April 2026 | Director of Public Prosecutions v Hazell [2026] ACTSC 80 (SCC 229 of 2025; SCC 230 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm – taking and driving a motor vehicle without consent – unlawfully taking a child – aggravated dangerous driving – failing to appear on a bail undertaking – extensive criminal history – poor prospects for rehabilitation – high degree of concurrency – drug use – childhood disadvantage – reduced moral culpability – high risk of reoffending |
Uploaded 2 April 2026 | DPP v Scott (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 85 (SCC 125 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – where participant withdrew consent – whether original sentence should be imposed – where significant history of non-compliance since sentence imposed however participant undertook substantial component of rehabilitative program in custody while being subject to the order – where offender still desires to undertake a targeted program of intervention and one is available – offender resentenced |
Uploaded 2 April 2026 | DPP v Saunders (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 68CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Cancellation of Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order – s 80ZD cancellation of Treatment Order – further offending after imposition of Treatment Order – custodial sentences imposed for further offending – mandatory cancellation – consideration of whether to impose suspended portion of custodial part of Treatment Order or to resentence offender |
Uploaded 1 April 2026 | Agnello v Maliganis Edwards Johnson (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 84PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – firm of solicitors – commutation of workers compensation entitlements – whether plaintiff was properly advised of his rights – alleged breach of implied terms of retainer – breach of duty of care – scope of duty of care – state of connection pursuant to s 36B of the Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) – breach of duty – sufficiency of oral advice – no written advice – decision to settle – commutation of rights – breach established with respect to the risk of commutation with respect to opinion contained within report - causation not established – failure to provide advice did not cause harm – value of the lost opportunity – proceedings dismissed |
Uploaded 1 April 2026 | Robertson v DPP; DPP v Robertson [2026] ACTCA 11Judgment SummaryAPPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction following trial by jury – sexual offences – alleged juror misconduct – alleged misdirection concerning belief in consent – alleged incorrect ruling as to rebuttal of good character evidence – alleged omissions in directions – where no objection taken at trial – unreasonable verdict ground The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against conviction for two charges of committing an act of indecency and two charges of sexual intercourse without consent. The appellant was found guilty after a trial by jury. He appealed on grounds including alleged juror misconduct, alleged misdirection concerning belief of consent, alleged incorrect ruling as to rebuttal of good character evidence, alleged omissions in trial directions and unreasonableness of the verdict. The Court dismissed each ground. |
Uploaded 1 April 2026 | DPP v Catania [2026] ACTSC 54 (SCC 223 of 2025; SCC 224 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – family violence offending against the offender’s father – aggravated intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm – aggravated destroy or damage property – Bugmy considerations – impact of parent’s drug use and witnessing family violence at a young age – offending a direct result of offender’s drug use – good prospects of rehabilitation – victim’s hope that offender would not be incarcerated – genuine remorse, family support and changed behaviour The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a suspended sentence and Good Behaviour Order for one count of aggravated intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm and one count of aggravated damage to property. Justice Baker took into account the offender’s exposure to drug use and family violence at a young age, as well as his support network, genuine remorse and changed behaviour. |
Uploaded 1 April 2026 | DPP v Kulacz [2026] ACTSC 67 (SCC 425 of 2024; SCC 381 of 2025; SCC 398 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – family violence offences against two victims – both victims in intimate relationship with offender at time of offending – second victim pregnant at time of offending – all offending occurred while on condition liberty relating to previous family violence offending – lack of genuine remorse – young man – good prospects of rehabilitation The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period for 18 months for family violence offending against two victims. The offender was on conditional liberty in relation to family violence offending at the time of both sets of offending. Justice Baker found that the offender lacked genuine remorse. However, noting the offender’s youth, her Honour sentenced the offender to a shorter than usual non-parole period. |
Uploaded 1 April 2026 | Pastrello v Saeedi (No 2) [2026] ACTCA 10Judgment SummaryAPPEAL – SUCCESSION – Wills, probate and administration –testamentary capacity – where solicitor recorded the making of the will – whether the primary judge erred in finding the testator had capacity and knowledge to approve the contents of the will – appeal dismissed The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal contending that the testator of a will did not have the testamentary capacity to execute it due to his age and ill health. The testator, Lorenzo Pastrello, was the father of the two appellants and grandfather of the respondents. The Court upheld the decision of the primary judge, finding that the principal sources of evidence demonstrated that the deceased did have capacity to execute the will and approve of its contents. |
Uploaded 1 April 2026 | Charles v Davies [2026] ACTSC 86CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Bail – application for bail pending appeal – section 9E of the Bail Act – special or exceptional circumstances – application dismissed |
Uploaded 1 April 2026 | Director of Public Prosecutions v Job (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 81CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail – application for bail – history of failing to comply with orders of the Court – where the offender breached a good behaviour order – application refused |
Uploaded 31 March 2026 | Khan v Filardo Ercan Architects Pty Ltd [2026] ACTSC 82CIVIL LAW – APPEAL – application for leave to appeal from order of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) – leave to appeal granted – where Tribunal found failure to exercise due care and skill in respect of one matter – whether additional failures should have been found CONSUMER LAW – STATUTORY GUARANTEES – due care and skill guarantee in s 60 of the ACL – whether error in lack of finding of a failure to supply services with due care and skill – whether error in Tribunal’s lack of analysis of cumulative conduct The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal from an appeal decision in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal concerning allegations of a breach of statutory guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law and in breach of contract. The parties were involved in a building dispute arising from the design of architectural plans. The primary issue was whether the respondent architect had failed to exercise due care and skill in a manner that would permit the appellant owner to recover fees he had paid for the design before terminating the contract. The Tribunal dismissed the application. The court found error of law had been established but that the Tribunal’s conclusion was ultimately correct. |
Uploaded 30 March 2026 | Hyde v DPP; Sibley v DPP [2026] ACTCA 9Judgment SummaryAPPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeals against conviction – whether verdicts unreasonable – charges of aggravated robbery and forcible confinement based on alleged joint criminal enterprise – where one appellant arrived after property taken from complainant – whether verdicts open – whether prosecution’s closing address caused miscarriage of justice – whether leave required to appeal on that ground The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal from two co-offenders against their conviction by jury of joint commission forcible confinement and aggravated robbery. The appellants appealed on grounds that the jury verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, that evidence (including a co-offender’s statement of facts to which he had pleaded guilty) was not admissible and that the prosecutor’s closing address had caused a miscarriage of justice. The Court unanimously dismissed both appeals. |
| Uploaded 27 March 2026 | DPP v Booth (No 3) [2026] ACTSC 79 (SCC 200 of 2024; SCC 201 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Where participant committed offences while subject to a treatment order – application of s 80ZD of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) – whether original sentence should be imposed – where significant history of non-compliance since sentence imposed |
| Uploaded 27 March 2026 | Huber v Williams Love and Nicol Lawyers Pty LtdCIVIL LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs Agreement – whether costs agreements with solicitors not fair or reasonable – suspension of a limitation period due to disability – no unfair contract terms – no unconscionable conduct – application dismissed |
| Uploaded 27 March 2026 | Cheema v Truman [2026] ACTSC 60APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from Magistrates Court– appeal from conviction – act of indecency – whether magistrate erred in finding act was indecent – where appellant found to have intentionally touched breast of complainant for three to five seconds – no innocent purpose for intentional touch – no error established APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from Magistrates Court– appeal from conviction – armchair appeal – importance of appeals being confined and constrained by conduct of case at first instance APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from Magistrates Court– appeal from sentence – whether magistrate erred in failing to make a non-conviction order – where appellant has no prior criminal history and is otherwise of good character – no error established – importance of general deterrence – entitlement of Uber passengers to not be taken advantage of The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal from the Magistrates Court against a conviction and sentence for an act of indecency. The appellant, an Uber driver, asserted that the magistrate had erred because she failed to consider whether the deliberate touching of the complaint’s breast, his passenger, was indecent. Acting Justice Berman found no error was established, as there was no innocent explanation for the intentional touching. In dismissing the sentence appeal, his Honour also found no error, stressing the importance of general deterrence in matters involving Uber and other ride-share service drivers. |
| Uploaded 27 March 2026 | Prakash v Commonwealth Securities Ltd [2026] ACTSC 77PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – Summary Dismissal – abuse of process – where proceedings are an abuse of process – identical proceedings in another jurisdiction – proceedings dismissed |
| Uploaded 25 March 2026 | DPP v Loiterton [2026] ACTSC 74 (SCC 293 of 2025; SCC 294 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – act endangering life – damage property – obstruct territory official – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – light unauthorised fire – where offending contributed to by homelessness and illicit drug use – minimal pro-social connections – backdated sentence of imprisonment imposed to be suspended after 9 months The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for the offences of act endangering life, damage property, obstruct a territory official, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and light an unauthorised fire. The offender was experiencing homelessness and engaged in illicit drug use which contributed to the offending. Acting Justice Berman sentenced the offender to a total period of imprisonment of 15 months, backdated to account for time served in custody pre-sentence, to be suspended after 9 months. |
| Uploaded 24 March 2026 | Australian National University v Lendlease Construction Pty Ltd [2026] ACTSC 72PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – Where reply to defence was alleged to introduce new issues – where plaintiff filed reply in accordance with the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – where neither the rules of pleading nor of proper case management require further identification of plaintiff’s case – held plaintiff was entitled to file its reply and there is no basis upon which the court should strike out that reply or make any other order arising from the filing of that reply PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – Defendant application for leave to file further amended statement of claim against third party – where amendment would expand case late in proceedings – where granting leave would have significant case management consequences – where vacating trial date would be inappropriate – held leave should not be granted insofar as it expands the case The Supreme Court has published a judgment on two pre-trial pleadings issues in a construction dispute. The proceedings arise from 2018 flood damage to several ANU buildings. The defendant opposed a reply filed by the plaintiff, alleging that it introduced new issues. Finding that it did not, the court held that the reply was filed in accordance with the Rules and that there was no basis to strike out that reply or make any other orders. The defendant also sought leave to file a further amended statement of claim against the second third party. Granting leave would have expanded the defendant’s case. In circumstances where the proceedings were at a late stage and granting leave would have significant case management ramifications, including the vacation of the trial date, the court held that leave would be refused insofar as it expanded the defendant’s claim. |
| Uploaded 24 March 2026 | R v Perry [2026] ACTSC 63 (SCC 332 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – possess child abuse material – transmit child abuse material – solicit child abuse material – genuine remorse – commitment to reform – excellent prospects of rehabilitation – guilty pleas –intensive correction order opposed by Crown – significant progress made by offender – forfeiture order sought by Crown in relation to devices used in connection with the offending – forfeiture order made - 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment imposed to be served by way of intensive correction order |
| Uploaded 23 March 2026 | R v Talwar [2026] ACTSC 70CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Pre-trial application – application by the Crown to adduce tendency and coincidence evidence - whether the evidence has significant probative value – whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by its potential prejudicial effect – significant probative value established – evidence admitted |
| Uploaded 23 March 2026 | Cox v Hollway (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 69CRIMINAL LAW – APPEALS – review appeal from Magistrates Court – delay in complaint – application of s 80B of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) – where Crofts direction given – whether error in reasoning process – whether error in significant forensic disadvantage direction – whether court should exercise residual discretion – appeal allowed The Supreme Court has allowed a review appeal brought by the prosecution in respect of a decision of the Magistrates Court dismissing two charges of an act of indecency on a person aged between 10 and 16 years. The review appeal concerned directions and warnings given in relation to delay by the complainant in reporting the allegations and the consequences of delay. The court below was found to have erred in the approach taken to s 80B of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,which had a consequence for the court’s reasoning in the context of making a Crofts direction. Error was also established in relation to the common law direction given concerning forensic disadvantage, which was inconsistent with the provisions of s 165B of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court declined to exercise the residual discretion to dismiss the proceeding and instead remitted the matter to the Magistrates Court for further determination according to law. |
| Uploaded 19 March 2026 | DPP v Pallier [2026] ACTSC 46 (SCC 83 of 2025; SCC 84 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated furious, reckless, dangerous driving – possess unregistered/prohibited firearm – drive while disqualified (repeat offender) – Bugmy considerations – extensive criminal history – exemplary performance on bail – illicit substance use – reduced moral culpability – strong prospects of rehabilitation – automatic license disqualification – period of imprisonment imposed for drive while disqualified offence – imposition of an intensive corrections order for a period of 14 months |
| Uploaded 19 March 2026 | Robinson v Calbert [2026] ACTSC 64APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from Magistrates Court –causing grievous bodily harm – appeal from conviction – incident involving bicycles – where complaint asserts he was pushed – where appellant asserts bicycles became entangled – whether finding of guilt unreasonable – whether prosecution excluded reasonable possibility that complainant was mistaken The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal from the Magistrates Court against a conviction of causing grievous bodily harm, and has quashed the conviction. The case involved an incident on bicycles where the complainant asserted he was pushed, and the appellant asserted that the handles of the two bicycles had become entangled causing the complainant to fall. Acting Justice Berman found that the finding of guilt was unreasonable, as the prosecution had not excluded the reasonable possibility that the complaint was mistaken as to how he fell. |
| Uploaded 18 March 2026 | Shannon & Anor v Residential Reports Pty Ltd & Anor [2026] ACTSC 66CIVIL LAW – COMMON LAW– Duty as to reasonable care and skill – misleading or deceptive conduct – inspection report – where that inspection report was made without due care and skill – where that inspection report was deceptive and or misleading – expert evidence – breach of statutory duty – causation – quantum of damages |
| Uploaded 18 March 2026 | DPP v Ryan-Garnsey [2026] ACTSC 62 (SCC 326 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Fraud – Obtaining Property by Deception – Remorse and Rehabilitation – Early Guilty Plea – Partly Suspended Sentence – Good Behaviour Order – Compensation as condition of good behaviour order |
| Uploaded 18 March 2026 | Harrison v Kaye [2026] ACTSC 61APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for leave to appeal from decision of the appeal tribunal of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal – whether appeal tribunal failed to address case put by tenant – where appeal tribunal treated the issue as limited to whether there was an error of fact or law on the material before the original tribunal – where no consideration was given to the discretion to depart from s 82(1)(b) of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT) – arguable that the appeal tribunal misconstrued its jurisdiction by treating it too narrowly – leave to appeal granted The Supreme Court has granted an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the appeal tribunal of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The court found that, by treating the issue before it as limited to whether there was an error of fact or law on the material before the original tribunal, the appeal tribunal arguably took too narrow of an approach. Further, it failed to consider its discretion to depart from s 82(1)(b) of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT). |
| Uploaded 17 March 2026 | KN v DPP [2026] ACTSC 57CIVIL LAW – SPENT CONVICTIONS – Youth sexual offence conviction – Whether in the public interest to order conviction spent – competing interests of victim’s wellbeing and offender’s rehabilitation The Supreme Court has dismissed an application to order a 1999 conviction of an act of indecency on a child “spent” under the Spent Convictions Act 2000 (ACT). The applicant was 16 years old at the time of offending. The Court weighed the seriousness of the offending and the ongoing trauma suffered by the victim against the considerable amount of time since the offending and the current pro-social circumstances of the offender. This is the first time an application of this kind has been decided in the ACT. |
| Uploaded 16 March 2026 | DPP v Mavi [2026] ACTSC 56 (SCC 300 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm – aggravated due to family violence – where offender stabbed brother-in-law four or five times during argument while under the influence of alcohol – where victim had life-threatening injuries – no criminal history – significant impact on family – shorter than usual non-parole period |
| Uploaded 16 March 2026 | Gilmore (a pseudonym) v Duke [2026] ACTSC 55APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – self-defence at common law – false imprisonment – false confinement – whether any errors in factual findings – no error established – appeal dismissed |
| Uploaded 13 March 2026 | M Johnson Building Pty Ltd v O’Toole [2026] ACTCA 8Judgment SummaryAPPEAL – CIVIL LAW – Appeal against judgment in building dispute – where two defendants sued – where plaintiffs and second defendant settled before trial – where consent judgment entered against second defendant – where damages claimed partially concurrent against defendants – where damages apportioned in respect of first defendant – where settlement monies paid before damages assessed – whether plaintiffs doubly compensated – application of rule against double recovery The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal in part in respect of a building dispute between an appellant builder and two respondent owners of a residential dwelling constructed by the builder. The issue on which the builder succeeded related to a settlement that had occurred before the hearing between the owners and their certifier in the sum of $200,000 inclusive of costs. The damages claimed against the certifier partially overlapped with the damages claimed against the builder. The Court of Appeal found that in circumstances where the claims were partially for the same loss, and the settlement payment had been received prior to damages being awarded against the builder, the rule against double recovery applied. The court made orders to give practical effect to the rule, with the parties to be heard on costs. |
| Uploaded 13 March 2026 | DPP v Thornton (No 7) [2026] ACTSC 49 (SCC 305 of 2023; SCC 306 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual offending against two victims – charges of grooming, indecent assault, attempted sexual intercourse without consent, sexual intercourse without consent and choking – offender found guilty of 11 counts at trial – where the offences occurred at reptile zoo and reptile shop – diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder did not reduce moral culpability where one victim was 13 years old and the other verbally and physically expressed clear lack of consent – extra-curial punishment and offender’s mental health issues taken into account – breach of authority – breach of trust The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to five years and three months imprisonment after a jury found him guilty of sexual offences against two complainants. The offences occurred at a reptile zoo and reptile shop. Justice Baker ruled that the offender’s diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder did not reduce moral culpability where one victim was 13 years old and the other verbally and physically expressed clear lack of consent. |
| Uploaded 12 March 2026 | Territory Planning Authority v Gungahlin Golf Investments Pty Ltd [2026] ACTSC 53APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – where appeal lies with leave on a question of law – requirement to specify question of law – proper formulation of question of law |
| Uploaded 12 March 2026 | Gonyley v Gaughran (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 52CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from Magistrates Court – appeal against conviction – appeal against sentence – unlawful detention – admissibility of evidence – s 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – evidence unlawfully or inappropriately obtained – consideration of desirability of evidence – appeal upheld – conviction overturned |
| Uploaded 11 March 2026 | Blattman v Boon (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 51APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from the Magistrates Court against sentence – manifest inadequacy – prosecution appeal – intensive corrections order – pre-sentence custody – early appropriate guilty plea – totality – family violence – sentence to the rising of the court – assessment of objective seriousness – residual discretion – appeal dismissed |
| Uploaded 6 March 2026 | DPP v Green [2026] ACTSC 47 (SCC 181 of 2025; SCC 182 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – theft – failure to appear – Bugmy principles applied – Verdins principles applied – where offender not suitable for a drug and alcohol treatment order – totality considerations where offender has spent considerable time in custody for other offending – consideration of prospects of rehabilitation The Supreme Court has convicted an offender of a number of thefts over a 10-week period, where a total of approximately $20,000 was stolen from liquor and sports clothing stores. In addition, the offender was convicted of breach of bail. The offender had experienced significant childhood disadvantage and had a complex mental health background. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 1 year 7 months and 22 days with a non-parole period of 10 months. |
| Uploaded 6 March 2026 | DPP v Shepherd [2026] ACTSC 50 (SCC 218 of 2025; SCC 219 of 2025; SCC 258 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – threat to kill – choking – contravening family violence order – drug use – family violence – threatening to inflict grievous bodily harm – poor prospects of rehabilitation |
| Uploaded 5 March 2026 | DPP v Dickson (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 42 (SCC 94 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence –indecent assault upon a male – historical offences – multiple offences in one “rolled up” charge – victim did not consent – victim was a child– multiple elements of vulnerability – where the victim is not known to the offender – where there was no ongoing abuse of the victim - advanced age and ill health of offender – where delay in proceedings has allowed the offender to be treated as an innocent man for other child sexual assault offences The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to two years and ten months’ imprisonment for the offence of indecent assault upon a male committed in 1980. The Court assessed the objective seriousness to be considerable as the victim was a child and did not consent. The Court weighed the advanced age and ill health of the offender against the seriousness of the offending. The offender will be eligible for parole on 12 October 2027. |
| Uploaded 5 March 2026 | DPP v Tucker-Quinn (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 45 (SCC 355 of 2025; SCC 356 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – young person – aggravated burglary – damage property – limited prospects of rehabilitation – requirement to suspend sentences for young persons – breach of good behaviour orders |
| Uploaded 5 March 2026 | DPP v Brown [2026] ACTSC 44 (SCC 84 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – dishonestly obtaining property by deception – reduced moral culpability – Intensive Corrections Order – schizoaffective disorder |
| Uploaded 5 March 2026 | McGary v DPP [2025] ACTCA 22CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Application for leave to appeal – application to permanently stay proceedings – where grant of leave to appeal would fragment the criminal process – where right to appeal would be retained in event the applicant is found guilty at trial – application for leave to appeal is dismissed |
| Uploaded 5 March 2026 | DPP v McGary [2023] ACTSC 14CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – pre-trial application for witness intermediary for complainant – s 4AJ Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) – communication difficulty – anxiety – stress – depression – PTSD – effects of mental health conditions on communication – function of witness intermediary – application for parent of complainant to give evidence remotely – pre-existing cardiac condition – application for support person for parent of complainant |
| Uploaded 4 March 2026 | Hartfield v Calvary Healthcare ACT Ltd (No 5) [2026] ACTSC 29CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - COSTS – costs following plaintiff’s success on alternative claim – whether defendant breached obligations under Part 5.2 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act – whether proportionate costs order should be made under r 1705 of the Court Procedures Rules – whether costs for plaintiff’s primary and alternative claim should be severed – application or r 1725 of the Court Procedures Rules – whether order for different costs should be made under r 1705(3) – defendant did not breach Part 5.2 – proportionate costs order not made – different costs order made – defendant to pay 90% of plaintiff’s costs on an ordinary basis excluding the costs related to one expert witness. |
| Uploaded 3 March 2026 | Whittaker v DPP (No 2) [2026] ACTCA 7Judgment SummaryCRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCING – Procedural fairness – where sentence of imprisonment was the only appropriate sentence – where prosecutor conceded that an order that the sentence be served by intensive correction in the community was warranted – where sentencing judge gave no indication of inclination not to act on prosecutor’s concession but later imposed sentences requiring period of full-time custody APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Disposal of appeal by consent – where prosecution concedes ground of appeal – whether appropriate for single judge to make consent orders The Court of Appeal has unanimously allowed an appeal from the sentencing decision of the Supreme Court on the grounds that the appellant was denied procedural fairness. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for resentencing to allow the appellant to produce further evidence. The Court of Appeal also noted that the appeal could not be allowed by consent but should be determined by three judges. |
| Uploaded 25 February 2026 | Picker v Mensinga [2026] ACTSC 40APPEAL - CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against decision of magistrate – driving offence – sentencing error – not taking into account a relevant consideration – plea of guilty – character and personal circumstance – error made out – residual discretion – sentence reasonable in circumstances – appeal dismissed. |
| Uploaded 23 February 2026 | DPP v Vu [2026] ACTSC 39 (SCC 128 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – murder – where the offender murdered his former wife – infliction of multiple stab wounds – consideration of the impact of offender’s psychiatric conditions at time of offending – consideration of the offender’s ill health and old age – offender’s life expectancy between 4 and 6 years – consideration of weight to be given to unsworn evidence of remorse – sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years with non-parole period of 14 years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for murder following a plea of guilty. The deceased was the offender’s ex wife. The offender is 73 years old and his age and ill health were taken into account in sentencing. The offender was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment with a 14 year non-parole period. |
| Uploaded 23 February 2026 | Whittaker v DPP [2025] ACTCA 42APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – application for appeal bail – test applicable to applications for appeal bail – where prosecution conceded intensive corrections order warranted – where sentencing judge imposed full-time custodial sentence after reserving decision – consideration of further evidence that could have been led had intimation been given of intention not to act on concession – consideration of prospects of success of appeal. |
| Uploaded 23 February 2026 | DPP v Costello [2025] ACTSC 544 (SCC 211 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – arson by joint commission – drive/ride motor vehicle without consent – where co-offender was the driving force of the offending – whether restitution order should be made – where offender financially disadvantaged - restitution order not made – suspended sentence and good behaviour order imposed. |
Uploaded 20 February 2026 | Supaphien v Chaiyabarn [2026] ACTCA 5Judgment SummaryAPPEAL – CIVIL LAW – Defamation – requirement for plaintiff to establish serious harm – where serious harm element brought forward as a separate question – whether primary judge erred in construing “serious” as falling on a spectrum between “significant” and “grave” – model defamation amendment provisions – where alleged defamatory material did not identify the plaintiff by name – proof of publication to only five people – whether serious harm established The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal from the decision of a judge of the Supreme Court who ruled that a plaintiff’s claim did not meet the requirement of “serious harm” for a defamation claim under s 122A of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002. The Court (McCallum CJ and Loukas-Karlsson J, McWilliam J agreeing) dismissed the appeal on the basis that there was no sufficient evidential foundation establishing serious harm. The majority considered that there was no error in the primary judge’s approach, including the test applied for serious harm. Justice McWilliam found error in the reasoning of the primary judge but, applying the correctness standard of review for appeals, held that the primary judge’s ruling was not wrong and therefore the appeal should be dismissed |
| Uploaded 18 February 2026 | Knight v Naylor [2026] ACTSC 35APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – threat to inflict grievous bodily harm – whether errors in primary Magistrate’s factual findings – threat to “end” complainant – threat conveyed clear intention to kill – reasonable person test applied – no error established – no error in reliance on R v McHenry – appeal dismissed |
| Uploaded 17 February 2026 | DPP v Hicks (a pseudonym) (No 3) [2023] ACTSC 56CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Demurrer to Indictment – where the accused is charged with two counts of incitement to procure a murder – whether the offence of incitement to procure where the offence incited is not carried out is an offence known to law STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Legislative Purpose – Immediate context – Section headings – Extrinsic materials – Explanatory Memoranda – principle that an amendment may alter the effect of an unamended provision – where Parliament clearly intended to criminalise particular conduct in response to a decision of the High Court of Australia – whether amendments failed to achieve that objective – whether s 45 of the Criminal Code qualifies the operation of s 47 of the Criminal Code |
| Uploaded 17 February 2026 | Application of the Attorney-General (ACT) [2026] ACTSC 31JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – TAKING EVIDENCE FOR FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS – Request for information by court in Ukraine – Div 6.10.9 of Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – orders for issue of subpoenas to produce |
| Uploaded 17 February 2026 | Stewart v Kirk [2026] ACTSC 33CIVIL LAW – PERSONAL INJURY – Motor vehicle accident – application for defined benefits – where plaintiff seeks common law damages in addition to defined benefits under the Act – consideration of procedure for claiming for defined benefits and common law damages under the Act – where independent medical examiner assessed plaintiff’s WPI to be less than 10% – where plaintiff called compulsory conference following private medical assessment of WPI exceeding 10% – where private medical examiner also an independent medical examiner – whether WPI determination of private medical examiner satisfies pre-condition for bringing motor accident claim STATUTES – INTERPRETATION – s 239 Motor Accident Injuries Act 2019 (ACT) – meaning of “independent medical examiner” – meaning of “private medical practitioner” – whether private medical practitioner’s assessment a “WPI assessment” The Supreme Court has dismissed the application by a person who was injured in a motor vehicle accident calling for a compulsory conference with the insurer. The plaintiff had argued that s 239 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2019, which required an assessment of at least 10% whole-person impairment from an independent medical examiner before commencing a claim for common law damages, was satisfied by an assessment conducted by a private practitioner despite an earlier independent medical examiner determining a 0% impairment. The Court held that the Act did not consider the assessment of a private practitioner to be an assessment of an independent medical examiner. Rather, the original independent medical examiner was the medical practitioner whose opinion bound the parties. As they had assessed the plaintiff to have an impairment of 0%, the plaintiff was prevented from bringing a claim. |
| Uploaded 17 February 2026 | KB1 v Director-General of the Community Services Directorate (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 34CIVIL LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – Care and protection proceedings – requirement for leave to appeal out of time – requirement for extension of time within which to seek judicial review – where applicant effectively excluded from proceedings by being denied service of documents filed and later removed from the proceedings in his absence – where Court called up lower court record – where respondent makes public interest immunity claim EVIDENCE LAW – PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY – Claim for exclusion of evidence and court record under s 130 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) and common law principles – whether in the public interest to exclude court record – where paramount consideration in the care proceedings is the best interests of the child – requirement to balance interest in affording procedural fairness to a parent with paramountcy of child’s best interests The Supreme Court has ruled that a Children’s Court record not be provided to an applicant seeking judicial review because the record was subject to public interest immunity. The applicant had been effectively excluded from proceedings in the Children’s Court, and had sought leave to commence proceedings out of time in the Supreme Court for review of the decision to omit him. The Court ordered in an earlier decision that the record should be produced for the Court (though not the parties) to inspect. Following that order, the mother of the child made an application claiming public interest immunity of the record. The Court was required to balance procedural fairness to the applicant with consideration of the child’s best interests. In doing so, the Court held that procedural fairness was not an absolute right, and that under the Children and Young People Act 2008 the best interests of the child were paramount. |
| Uploaded 13 February 2026 | Pacific Formwork (Aust) Holdings Pty Ltd v United Rentals Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 27CIVIL LAW – APPEAL – Costs – where appeal and cross-appeal both unsuccessful – where parties ordered to bear their own costs – application by respondent for special costs order – failure to accept Calderbank offer – where offer was inclusive of costs – impossibility of assessing whether it was unreasonable for the plaintiff not to accept the offer |
| Uploaded 13 February 2026 | Bennelong Medical Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (costs) [2026] ACTSC 26CIVIL LAW – COSTS – application for costs against a non-party – where non-party previously denied leave to represent plaintiff company – where non-party on notice that defendant would seek indemnity costs if a further application for leave was pursued |
| Uploaded 13 February 2026 | Gang v You (No 2) [2026] ACTCA 3CIVIL LAW – APPEAL - Costs – appellant ordered to pay respondents’ costs – respondents seeking special costs order – respondents seeking indemnity costs - reasonableness of rejecting a Calderbank offer – where respondent received a judgment more favourable than the terms offered – where weakness of appeal does not render Calderbank rejection unreasonable |
| Uploaded 12 February 2026 | KS v Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd (No 5) [2026] ACTSC 10FINANCIAL SERVICES – STATUTORY UNCONSCIONABILITY – Loan agreements – where defendant created system to insulate it from knowledge of borrowers’ personal circumstances – where defendant did not require information to establish that borrower and guarantor could service loan – where, despite borrower being trustee corporation and loan being labelled a business loan, property being purchased was to be owner occupied – where broker received substantial fees upon borrower’s entry into loan agreement – where defendant could increase interest rate under loan if it suffered increased costs or a decrease in effective return, despite loan not being identified as a variable rate loan – where defendant would receive substantial fees on default – where defendant had no system in place to ensure the borrower was an appropriate one – defendant’s conduct unconscionable EQUITY – UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT – Knowledge – where plaintiff under special disadvantage – where defendant only dealt with plaintiff through broker – where apparent that plaintiff under significant financial pressure – financial pressure not, of itself, a special disadvantage – defendant had no knowledge of plaintiff’s conditions and therefore her special disadvantage – defendant’s conduct not unconscionable in equity CONSUMER PROTECTION – BORROWERS AND GUARANTORS – Whether guarantor under loan agreement a “debtor” for National Credit Code (Cth) – where guarantor termed a “principal debtor” and has significant obligations under loan agreement – where, nevertheless, distinction maintained between borrower and guarantor under loan agreement – guarantor not a “debtor” The Supreme Court has found that a loan agreement is invalid and unenforceable because the defendant engaged in unconscionable conduct, contrary to s 12CB of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth). While the court found that the defendant’s conduct was not unconscionable in equity and that the National Credit Code (Cth) did not apply, the court concluded that the defendant’s system of insulating itself from knowledge of borrowers’ circumstances was exploitative and unconscionable under s 12CB. |
| Uploaded 12 February 2026 | Adam (a pseudonym) v Nihill [2026] ACTSC 25CRIMINAL APPEALS – charges of aggravated common assault and aggravated choking, suffocating or strangling – where aggravation was family violence – where complainant not required for cross-examination – whether reasonable doubt ought to have been entertained – whether expert evidence required for finding within common knowledge of magistrate – whether rule in Browne v Dunn misapplied – whether Liberato direction misapplied The Supreme Court has found that error was established in respect of a Magistrates Court decision dealing with charges of common assault and choking in a family violence context. Of a number of grounds of error argued, the one that succeeded related to a misapplication of the principle in Browne v Dunn. The Court found error in the magistrate’s reasons for rejecting the appellant’s evidence at trial, which had partly relied on a failure to cross-examine the complainant affecting the weight to be given to the appellant’s evidence. The parties were given an opportunity to be heard on the question of remittal or further determination, which remains to be determined. |
| Uploaded 12 February 2026 | R v Hicks (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 24CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail application – Requirement to establish special or exceptional circumstances – where the accused has spent a significant period of time in custody on remand – consideration of risk of reoffending |
| Uploaded 12 February 2026 | Decision Restricted [2026] ACTSC 19CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Tendency evidence – pre-trial application to adduce tendency evidence – sexual assault charges against two complainants – alleged incidents against each complainant separated by approximately 4 years As the judgment is restricted, it is not publicly available. Any enquires about this decision should be directed to Baker J’s chambers. Associate.BakerJ@courts.act.gov.au |
| Uploaded 12 February 2026 | Decision Restricted [2026] ACTSC 20CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Coincidence evidence – pre-trial application to adduce coincidence evidence – series of burglaries at commercial premises – evidence relates to clothing worn and vehicles used for offences – holistic consideration of coincidence evidence in context of other evidence to be adduced – coincidence evidence admissible in relation to some of the alleged events As the judgment is restricted, it is not publicly available. Any enquires about this decision should be directed to Baker J’s chambers. Associate.BakerJ@courts.act.gov.au |
| Uploaded 12 February 2026 | Li v Chen [2026] ACTSC 24CIVIL LAW – SECURITY AND COSTS – Application for security for costs – plaintiff ordinarily resident in China – exercise of discretion to order security – no evidence of impecuniosity – arguable defence – security for costs ordered – quantum of security – payment of security in tranches |
| Uploaded 12 February 2026 | Hamilton (a pseudonym) v Lancaster (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 18APPEAL – FAMILY VIOLENCE – Appeal against non-extension of family violence order against the respondent and implementation of a new family violence order against the applicant – where both applicant and respondent are self-represented – appeal filed almost two years out of time – consideration of principles relating to appeals filed out of time – where FVO appealed against has expired – where the need for finality is particularly high – not in the interests of justice to allow an out of time appeal – application dismissed The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal from the Magistrates Court against the implementation of an FVO against the applicant and the non-extension of an FVO against the respondent. Both parties were self-represented and the appeal was filed almost two years out of time. The Court considered principles relating to out of time appeals including the need for finality and the interests of justice in dismissing the appeal. |
| Uploaded 11 February 2026 | In the Estate of Mildred Evelyn Griffin [2026] ACTSC 21SUCCESSION – WILLS, PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION – Application for examination and passing of accounts – where applicant alleges the Estate has not been administered in accordance with the will – where applicant raises various complaints regarding the administration of the Estate and the behaviour of the executors – certain complaints without substance – executors’ behaviour regarding auctioning of Estate assets raises the spectre of other irregularities – respondent invited to file further evidence The Supreme Court has invited the respondents to file further evidence in an application for examination and passing of accounts. The applicant and the respondents were brothers who were the beneficiaries under the will of their mother. The respondents were also executors of the will. The applicant raised various complaints about the conduct of the respondents in administering the will. While some complaints were without substance, the respondents’ conduct in auctioning estate assets without notice to the applicant raised the spectre of other irregularities. The respondents were invited to provide further evidence before a final determination is made. |
| Uploaded 11 February 2026 | O’Brien (a pseudonym) v DPP [2026] ACTCA 2APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – where jury delivered mixed verdicts – whether verdicts inconsistent – where offences occurred both before and after the Crimes (Consent) Amendment Act 2022 (ACT) – whether trial judge failed to properly direct the jury as to the change in the law – whether tendency evidence properly admitted at trial – High Court principles concerning the admission of tendency evidence - whether tendency evidence engaged impermissible circular reasoning or diluted directions concerning onus of proof - whether miscarriage of justice arose from directions regarding tendency evidence – verdicts not inconsistent – tendency evidence properly admitted – no error in directions concerning consent and tendency – appeal dismissed. APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Prosecution cross-appeal against sentence – whether finding of recklessness as to consent open to sentencing judge – whether conviction with no further penalty available to the sentencing judge – whether sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate – finding of recklessness open to sentencing judge – conviction with no further penalty an available sentencing option at law – sentencing principles for young offenders – sentence not manifestly inadequate – appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal against conviction, and a cross-appeal against sentence. The appellant was charged with 13 counts of sexual offending against 4 victims. He was convicted following a jury trial of 5 counts, was found not guilty on 4 counts, and no verdict was reached on 3 counts. Both the appellant and the victims were aged between 14 and 17 years old at the time of the offending. Following the trial, appellant was sentenced to an overall term of imprisonment of 2 years, suspended after approximately 4 months upon entry into a Good Behaviour Order for 21 months. The appellant appealed on three grounds: that the verdicts were inconsistent; that the trial judge did not properly direct the jury as to the changes regarding consent law; and that tendency evidence was improperly admitted at trial, and trial directions regarding tendency gave rise to a miscarriage of justice. The Court found that no ground was made out and the appeal was dismissed. The DPP appealed against the appellant’s sentence on three grounds: that the sentencing judge had been in error in finding that the offender was reckless as to the victim’s lack of consent; that there was a further error in the imposition of a conviction without further penalty; and that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Court found that there was no error in the sentencing judge’s factual findings, or in the imposition of a conviction without further penalty. The Court further found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The cross-appeal was therefore dismissed. |
| Uploaded 11 February 2026 | Manny v ACT (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 23PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – where plaintiff has repleaded – whether plaintiff afforded fair opportunity to replead – court’s responsibility in dealing with self-represented litigants – strike out and summary dismissal – whether reasonable cause of action disclosed – competing application for summary judgment – where claims sought to be raised previously litigated and determined – where no arguable claim otherwise able to be discerned |
| Uploaded 11 February 2026 | Bennelong Medical Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (No 9) [2025] ACTCA 28APPEAL – JURISDICTION – Transfer of proceedings – Cross-vesting legislation – where proceedings involve “special federal matter” – where court may decline where there are “special reasons” for doing so – interpretation of “special reasons” |
| Uploaded 11 February 2026 | Bennelong Medical Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (No 8) [2025] ACTCA 27APPEAL – CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Refusal of leave to appear on behalf of company – where leave required to appear on behalf of a company where representative not a legal practitioner |
| Uploaded 10 February 2026 | DPP v Robins (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 30CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pre-trial application – advance ruling – s 74A Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) – family violence evidence of child witness – whether evidence sought to be adduced provides context for a fact in issue – delay in complaint – whether probative value outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice |
| Uploaded 10 February 2026 | DPP v Ophel [2025] ACTSC 556CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment – attempted murder of two students on campus – diagnosis of chronic, treatment-resistant schizophrenia – plea of not guilty by reason of mental impairment – where prosecution agrees special verdict should be entered – whether appropriate to make an order for detention – assessment of nominated term – where offender had previously been detained under same scheme for attempted murder of five students on campus – importance of community protection The Supreme Court found an accused person not guilty by reason of mental impairment for the attempted murder of two people and assault of two others. The Court found that the accused was suffering from treatment-resistant schizophrenia at the time. The Court nominated two terms of imprisonment for life, which will enable ACAT to indefinitely detain the accused. In doing so, the Court referred to the need for community protection and the importance of proportionality with the seriousness of the offending. |
| Uploaded 10 February 2026 | DPP v Davidson [2025] ACTSC 498 (SCC 424 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – trafficking in controlled drugs, namely cocaine, methamphetamine and methylone – trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis – money laundering – significant level of drug dealing and dealing with proceeds of drug trafficking – offending while on parole and bail – significant criminal history of drug trafficking – pleas of guilty – unusual personal circumstances – no further offending while on bail – reasonable prospects that offender will not return to offending behaviour – sentence of 43 months’ imprisonment – intensive correction order – community service condition The Supreme Court has published the reasons for sentence of an offender charged with trafficking in controlled drugs and money laundering. The court had regard to the unusual personal circumstances of the offender and found that there were reasonable prospects that the offender would not return to the offending behaviour. The court sentenced the offender to three years and seven months’ imprisonment to be served by intensive correction in the community, with a condition that he perform community service. |
| Uploaded 10 February 2026 | KB1 v Director-General of the Community Services Directorate [2025] ACTSC 210CIVIL LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – Care and protection proceedings – requirement for leave to appeal out of time – requirement for extension of time within which to seek judicial review – where applicant effectively excluded from proceedings by being denied service of documents filed and later removed from the proceedings in his absence – where applicant seeks access to the record – requirement under Children and Young People Act to consider child’s best interests |
| Uploaded 10 February 2026 | DPP v Hicks (a pseudonym) (No 7) [2024] ACTSC 384 (SCC 115 of 2022)CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – Sentence – Incitement to procure murder – Objective seriousness – Where offender has demonstrated good prospects of rehabilitation |
| Uploaded 10 February 2026 | DPP v Hicks (a pseudonym) (No 6) [2024] ACTSC 223CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where non-publication order made under s 111 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) – application by victims to extend order for a lengthy period – consideration of the interests of the administration of justice |
| Uploaded 9 February 2026 | Ross v Gordon [2026] ACTCA 1Judgment summaryAPPEAL – WILLS, PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION – Appeal of dismissal of application to remove executor of estate – whether response to cross-examination by executor demonstrative of lack of fitness – generality of question put in cross-examination – appeal dismissed ESTOPPEL – ISSUE ESTOPPEL – Appeal of dismissal of claim that executor estopped from relying on lack of funds to pay legacy – whether prior proceedings determined estate’s capacity to pay legacy –– no identical issue determined – appeal dismissed ESTOPPEL – ANSHUN ESTOPPEL – Appeal of dismissal of finding that executor’s failure to plead lack of funds not unreasonable – comparison with facts in Anshun – abandoned family provision claim – uncertainty of legal costs and potential of specific bequests to fail – responsibility of both parties to raise issue – failure to plead not unreasonable – appeal dismissed The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal in a case seeking the removal of an executor to a will. In dismissing the appeal, the Court found that the question of the estate’s capacity to pay a bequest to the appellant was not determined in prior proceedings. As a result, no issue or Anshun estoppel was raised to prevent the executor from raising that question for determination in subsequent proceedings. |
| Uploaded 6 February 2026 | Mbark FCG Retirement Pty Ltd v Friends of Federal Fairways Inc [2026] ACTSC 17JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – STAY ORDERS – Application for stay of ACAT proceedings pending application for judicial review – application for prerogative relief brought out of time – leave under r 3557 of CPR – no evidence of special circumstances – not appropriate to grant stay – stay refused |
| Uploaded 5 February 2026 | Director of Public Prosecutions v Hicks (a pseudonym) (No 4) [2023] ACTSC 63PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – APPLICATION TO VACATE TRIAL DATE – Accused served with witness statement two weeks prior to trial – accused seeking time to arrange expert witness – where prosecution had not foreshadowed its intention to call witness – application allowed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – APPLICATION FOR NON PUBLICATION ORDER – Application seeks to protect identity of maker of statement – where maker of statement has received threats from operator of dark web website the subject of the trial – defence does not oppose an interim non publication order – application allowed – order subject to further order of the Court The Supreme Court has ordered a trial vacated and the interim non-publication of a witness’ evidence and identity. The accused was served with a witness statement two weeks before trial was due to commence. The accused sought, and was granted, postponement of the trial to obtain an expert witness to analyse the served witness statement and its associated materials. The same witness raised safety concerns with the AFP. The prosecution sought, and was granted, interim non-publication orders relating to the witness’ identity and evidence. |
| Uploaded 5 February 2026 | Hansen v Johnson [2026] ACTSC 16APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – family violence - inadequate reasons of the magistrate – mistake – unchallenged evidence of good character of the respondent – good character evidence – no substantial miscarriage of justice – residual discretion – appeal dismissed |
| Uploaded 4 February 2026 | TP Dynamics (ACT) Pty Ltd v G&H Plant Hire Pty Ltd [2026] ACTSC 15CIVIL LAW – BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Adjudication of progress payment claims – challenge to adjudicator’s decision in nature of certiorari – where adjudicator decided application before plaintiff responded – whether denial of natural justice – whether failure to consider – application dismissed BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – PAYMENT SCHEDULE – Where dispute over validity of purported payment schedule in response to payment claim – where service of payment schedule provides entitlement to adjudication response – requirement to clearly state proposed payment amount – intention to withhold payment not clearly disclosed – no valid payment schedule – plaintiff not entitled to adjudication response – no denial of natural justice ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – Where allegations of failure to consider based on adequacy of reasons – errors and omissions in adjudicator’s reasons – whether errors disclose failure to consider – distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional error – no failure to consider disclosed The ACT Supreme Court has dismissed an application for judicial review of a payment claim adjudication, finding no jurisdictional error established. The Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to lodge an adjudication response, there was no denial of natural justice in the determination of the adjudication, and that the adjudicator’s reasons did not disclose any failure to consider required matters. |
| Uploaded 30 January 2026 | Higgins v ACT (No 4) [2026] ACTSC 12COSTS – multi-party proceeding – where plaintiff substantially successful against two defendants but ultimately unsuccessful against another – where plaintiff succeeded against all defendants on the dominant issue in the proceeding – whether Bullock or Sanderson order appropriate – whether the plaintiff or the unsuccessful defendants should pay any portion of the successful defendant’s costs on any other basis – where successful defendant made a Calderbank offer shortly before hearing – whether it was unreasonable for the plaintiff not to accept the offer The Supreme Court has made costs orders following litigation where the plaintiff successfully established the existence of a scheme of development in respect of land located at Harcourt Hill Estate in Nicholls. The Territory and the Territory Planning Authority as the unsuccessful defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs, and 20% of the costs of Gungahlin Golf Investments Pty Ltd costs. The latter order was made by way of a Sanderson order. The court found there was something in the conduct of the unsuccessful defendants which made it fair to impose some liability on them for the successful defendant’s costs, notwithstanding that there was no issue on the pleadings between those defendants. |
| Uploaded 30 January 2026 | Hubzin v The Commissioner for Social Housing; Van Loo v The Commissioner for Social Housing; Irwin v The Commissioner for Social Housing [2026] ACTSC 11ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – public housing tenancies – where decisions made to include properties in which plaintiffs resided in housing redevelopment program – where decisions made to relocate plaintiffs without permitting them the opportunity to be heard – denial of procedural fairness conceded – decisions set aside HUMAN RIGHTS – Commissioner for Social Housing – decision to relocate long-term tenants in public housing – review decisions denied procedural fairness – whether decisions incompatible with human rights – right to freedom of movement – unlawful interference with home – right to maintain cultural and kinship ties – protection from degrading treatment The Supreme Court has granted declaratory relief and set aside decisions made by the Commissioner for Housing requiring three plaintiffs who were tenants in public housing to transfer from properties owned by the Commissioner that had been earmarked for sale or redevelopment. The Commissioner conceded that the initial decisions were made in denial of procedural fairness, and the court further found a failure to consider the human rights of the plaintiffs. |
| Uploaded 30 January 2026 | DPP v Pierce (a pseudonym) (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 480 (SCC 59 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – persistent sexual abuse of a child – incest on a young person – acts of indecency on a young person – where offender found guilty by jury of sexual offences against stepdaughter over a period of more than six years – where offender had disrupted background, negligible criminal history, depression and back pain – offender sentenced to aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 10 years, with non-parole period of five years – offender noted to be a prisoner at risk The Supreme Court has published the reasons for sentence of an offender who had been found guilty of 16 sexual offences committed against his stepdaughter over a period of more than six years, beginning when she was 11-12 years old. The court sentenced the offender to 10 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years. The offender had a disrupted background, negligible criminal history and suffered from depression and back pain. He was noted to be a prisoner at risk. |
| Uploaded 29 January 2026 | Doyle (a pseudonym) v Hayes [2025] ACTCA 51Judgment summaryAPPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against order of primary judge affirming convictions made in the Magistrates Court – aggravated common assault – breach family violence order – damage property – primary judge dismissed appeal against convictions by the magistrate – whether decision of the primary judge upholding convictions was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence – evidence of complainant was reliable and capable of supporting conviction – defendant’s bare denials provided no plausible alternative to complainant’s evidence – no error in reasoning of primary judge – appeal dismissed The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal against an order made by a judge of the Supreme Court affirming the convictions recorded by a magistrate. Namely, Common assault, breach family violence order and damage property. The Appellant appealed these convictions to the ACT Supreme Court. The primary judge dismissed the original appeal filed by the appellant on review of the evidence, the magistrate’s reasons for judgment and with respect to the advantage the magistrate enjoyed, determined that it was open to the magistrate to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty. |
| Uploaded 27 January 2026 | EJ v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn [2025] ACTSC 95CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Application to amend statement of claim – where plaintiffs claim damages for historical child sexual assault by priest – where pleadings filed before the decision of the High Court in Bird v DP (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41 alleged “appointment or engagement” of priest by defendant – application to replead in light of decision in Bird to allege employment of priest by defendant |
| Uploaded 23 January 2026 | Domain Design Projects Pty Ltd v BG Sales W1 Pty Ltd [2026] ACTSC 6ORDERS – FREEZING ORDER – ex parte application – where judgment obtained against defendant and not yet satisfied – where previous attempts to obtain satisfaction through garnishing assets unsuccessful – where real property assets in the process of being dissipated – where danger that the judgment debt will not be satisfied and balance of convenience favours making of the orders – freezing order made |
| Uploaded 23 January 2026 | Mbark FCG Retirement Pty Ltd v Friends of Federal Fairways Inc [2026] ACTSC 5APPEAL – APPEAL FROM ACAT – Application for leave to appeal from orders of ACAT – development application for retirement village on Federal Golf Club – applicant and first respondent in agreement as to legal error of Tribunal and that appeal should be allowed – legal effect of later ratification of development application – leave to appeal granted – appeal allowed – orders of the Tribunal set aside |
| Uploaded 22 January 2026 | DPP v Dorsett [2025] ACTSC 268CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – pre-trial application – tendency evidence –ss 97 and 101 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – significant probative value established – evidence unfairly prejudicial – tendency application dismissed |
| Uploaded 22 January 2026 | Cheqrouni v Barhen [2026] ACTSC 3APPEAL – COSTS – Claim by respondent to discontinued appeal for costs of appeal – r 5171 of the Court Procedures Rules – where usual course is appellant pays respondent’s costs upon discontinuance – no costs available as respondent is self-represented solicitor – Chorley exception – exception abolished in Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow – no order as to costs |
| Uploaded 22 January 2026 | Poole v Poole [2026] ACTSC 4CIVIL LAW – CONTRACTS – Claim for recovery of loans advanced to company – where company in liquidation – whether company director personally liable to repay debt – personal liability arising from directorship not established – privity of contracts – purported guarantee agreement signed by defendant – no valuable consideration for guarantee – liability of defendant not established – judgment for the defendant EQUITY – ASSIGNMENT – Where purported transfer of debt between companies – rules of assignment of chose in action – statutory requirements for legal assignment – no written assignment – no grounds for equitable assignment – transfer was not effective PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PARTIES – Application by beneficiary under deceased’s will to join parties to proceedings –no basis disclosed to add parties – application dismissed |
| Uploaded 21 January 2026 | Barac v Lameyer [2025] ACTSC 540CIVIL LAW – DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIP – Application for declaration that domestic relationship is void – s 37L of the Domestic Relationships Act 1994 – defendant not engaging with proceedings – plaintiff claims mental incapacity at time of entering into civil partnership – Alzheimer’s type dementia – order made declaring civil partnership void |
| Uploaded 20 January 2026 | KS v Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 458PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – LEGAL PRIVILEGE – Subpoenas – where defendant sought access to file notes said to record advice provided by plaintiffs’ solicitor – where first plaintiff’s lack of commercial understanding in issue in substantive proceedings – advice about the agreement in question (or similar transactions) is relevant to that issue – implied waiver – unjust to withhold documents from defendant PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUBPOENAS – Subpoenas following discovery – where discovery sought in too-narrow terms – where subpoena subsequently issued to capture other relevant documents – in the circumstances, subpoena not oppressive or an abuse of process The Supreme Court has granted parties access to certain subpoena material produced by a solicitor who acted for the plaintiffs in relation to a loan agreement the subject of the proceedings. The court found that the plaintiffs had impliedly waived legal professional privilege over file notes prepared by the solicitor. The court also found that the service of the subpoena by the defendant was not an abuse of process. |
| Uploaded 20 January 2026 | Francis (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth (No 6) [2026] ACTSC 2CIVIL LAW – TORTS – PERSONAL INJURY – Damages – historic sexual and physical abuse – where parties had agreed to settlement of claim – where plaintiff was receiving pension for incapacity – what extent Commonwealth liability to pay judgment is discharged by statute – where Commonwealth settled matter “without admissions” – whether possible to determine amount awarded in respect of same incapacity STATUTES – INTERPRETATION – s 30K Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) – meaning of “damages have been awarded” – whether term includes settlement payment and consent judgment – meaning of “incapacity” – whether “incapacity” confined to “incapacity for work” – meaning of “those damages” The Supreme Court has ordered that a veteran be paid a sum held by the Court. The Court was asked to determine if s 30K of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) precluded the plaintiff from recovering a full settlement sum regarding allegations of physical and sexual assault because he had previously been paid a pension for war-caused incapacity. The Court held in interpreting the section that ‘damages’ relevantly included a consent judgment and that ‘incapacity’ was concerned with the resulting incapacity and not the cause of it. However, the Court found that the settlement sum paid ‘without admissions’ precluded the Court from determining what part of the settlement sum overlapped with the pension, and accordingly found that the remaining settlement monies should be paid to the veteran. |
| Uploaded 19 January 2026 | Muhammad v Rahman [2025] ACTSC 539CIVIL LAW – CAVEATS – Application for removal of caveat over property – claim for equitable interest in property – asserted financial hardship resulting from caveat – no evidence of financial hardship resulting from caveat – serious case to be tried – application dismissed |
| Uploaded 16 January 2026 | Maguire v Kuzniarz [2025] ACTSC 225CIVIL PROCEDURE – claim of damages for medical negligence – where proceedings commenced before completion of requirements under Ch 5 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT); where proceedings commenced in order to avoid expiration of limitation period |
| Uploaded 16 January 2026 | Smith (a pseudonym) v ACT [2025] ACTSC 175CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for leave nunc pro tunc to disclose protected confidences – subpoena application – legitimate forensic purpose |
| Uploaded 15 January 2026 | June Griffiths by her litigation guardian Deborah Anderson v ACT (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 226CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to serve an expert report under r 1241 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – where author of earlier expert report became unavailable – different expert retained – where new expert provides a similar but different opinion |
| Uploaded 15 January 2026 | Reid v ACT [2025] ACTSC 201CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – personal injury – familial trauma and psychological injury – whether urgent need to commence proceedings – leave nunc pro tunc |
| Uploaded 15 January 2026 | DPP v Bowman (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 227 (SCC 140 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – attempted aggravated burglary – where co-offender was sentenced in the Galambany Court – where offender had drug and alcohol treatment order cancelled – where offender experienced dysfunction upbringing |
| Uploaded 15 January 2026 | R v Contreras [2025] ACTSC 161 (SCC 280 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offence of using a carriage service to procure a person under 16 years for sexual activity – whether sentence should be served by intensive correction order – whether communicating with undercover police officer reduces objective seriousness of the offence – where offender experienced traumatic childhood |
| Uploaded 15 January 2026 | Martinsen v ACT [2025] ACTSC 130CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – claim for damages for personal injury – where proceedings commenced before completion of the requirements of Ch 5 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) – where proceedings commenced to avoid expiration of limitation period — consideration of requirement for leave to commence proceedings |
| Uploaded 15 January 2026 | Brown (a pseudonym) v ACT [2025] ACTSC 135CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by defendant to de-identify any reference to a person the plaintiff alleges sexually assaulted him – whether de-identification is in the interests of administration of justice – application by defendant for leave to issue subpoenas requiring the production of documents which likely to include protected confidences – whether public interest in ensuring fair hearing outweighs public interest in preserving confidentiality of protected confidence |
| Uploaded 15 January 2026 | Everett v Williams [2025] ACTSC 129CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – claim for damages for motor vehicle accident – application of Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) |
| Uploaded 15 January 2026 | Bissicks v Re.Turn It (Canberra) Depot Pty Ltd [2025] ACTSC 136CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interrogatories – where each party seeks an order requiring the other party to answer interrogatories specified in correspondence – whether interrogatories proposed by the plaintiff objectionable on the ground that they “inquire into matters of evidence” |
| Uploaded 15 January 2026 | BFS v The Corporation of the Society of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart [2024] ACTSC 408CIVIL PROCEDURE – Inspection of court files – where plaintiff claiming damages for historical sexual abuse – application to inspect court files of other proceedings in which similar allegations made concerning same perpetrator – where court files subject to non-publication orders pursuant to s 111 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) – whether plaintiff should have leave to inspect files |
| Uploaded 14 January 2026 | JL v Gale [2026] ACTSC 1APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from Magistrates Court – breach of FVO – whether ADVO properly served – non-compliance with service requirements – non-compliance creates doubt about whether service occurred – service not proven beyond reasonable doubt – appeal upheld – verdicts of guilty set aside and verdicts of acquittal entered STATUTES – INTERPRETATION – s 77 of Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) – meaning of “police officer” – whether term includes non-NSW police officers – protective purpose of domestic violence legislative scheme – meaning of “police officer” not confined to officer of NSW |
| Uploaded 14 January 2026 | DPP v Morgan (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 7EVIDENCE LAW – TENDENCY EVIDENCE – Criminal proceedings – presumption of significant probative value for alleged tendency to have a sexual interest in a child – alleged act of indecency in touching the upper inner thigh of a girl – whether prior acts of touching the thigh in the same way admissible as tendency evidence |
| Uploaded 13 January 2026 | DPP v Chauveau [2025] ACTSC 553 (SCC 25 of 2025; SCC 26 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – numerous driving offences including accessory to culpable driving causing GBH – arson – discount for guilty plea – serious offending – significant criminal history – Bugmy considerations – sentence of full-time imprisonment – disqualification from holding driver’s licence |
| Uploaded 13 January 2026 | DPP v Ayuel (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 552 (SCC 337 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offence of arson – previous criminal history – drug and alcohol abuse – significant time already spent in custody on remand – backdated sentence of imprisonment imposed |
| Uploaded 7 January 2026 | DPP v Myers [2024] ACTSC 373CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Fitness to Plead – where accused has chronic mental illness – presumption of fitness – investigation into accused’s fitness to plead – consideration of expert evidence – determination on balance of probabilities – criteria considered – parties in agreement that accused is unfit to plead – accused found unfit to plead and unlikely to become fit to plead within 12 months. The publication restriction has been lifted. |
| Uploaded 7 January 2026 | DPP v Asbiran [2025] ACTSC 561 (SCC 95 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse with a person under 10 years – sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years – act of indecency with a person under 16 years – where offender abused position of trust and authority – where victim’s mother disbelieved victim and supported offender – impacts of offending on families – where offender showed no remorse – consideration of totality The Supreme Court has sentenced a sex offender to a total term of imprisonment for 10 years with a non-parole period of 5 years for one count of sexual intercourse with a person under 10 years, two counts of sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years and two counts of acts of indecency. The Court noted that the offender continued to deny the offending and that the victim’s family had been torn apart by her mother’s refusal to accept the offending had occurred. |
| Uploaded 6 January 2026 | DPP v Kozak (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 560 (SCC 342 of 2023; SCC 343 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – trafficking in a controlled substance – possession of property suspected to be the proceeds of crime – factors relevant to objective seriousness of drug trafficking offences – where offender had mixed motive of drug addiction and profit – where offender has strong prospects of rehabilitation – whether sentence appropriately served by intensive correction order. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to two years imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive correction order, for offences of trafficking a controlled substance other than cannabis and possessing property suspected to be the proceeds of crime. In sentencing the offender, the Court noted that the offender had strong prospects of rehabilitation. |
| Uploaded 6 January 2026 | DPP v McGary (No 13) [2025] ACTSC 557 (SCC 122 of 2022; SCC 53 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Sexual assault – offences committed against two victims four years apart – where offender does not accept responsibility for the offences – where offender is reluctant to engage in rehabilitation. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to 6 years imprisonment for two counts of sexual assault against two different victims. Both offences were assessed by the Court to be towards the middle of the range. The offender had displayed no remorse for the offences and his prospects of rehabilitation were guarded. The Court regarded specific and general deterrence as particularly important in the circumstances of this case. |
| Uploaded 6 January 2026 | DPP v Wijesinghe [2025] ACTSC 543 (SCC 194 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Murder – where offending of the utmost gravity – where offending premeditated – where evidence offender was mentally unwell at time of offending – relevance of mental health to objective seriousness – specific and general deterrence – consideration of need to ensure that reduction for guilty plea not be disproportionate to seriousness of offending. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to 30 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years for the murder of his co-worker at the National Zoo and Aquarium. The Court regarded the offending to be of the utmost gravity, considering the premeditation and violence involved. The Court did not accept that the offender’s poor mental health reduced the severity of the offending, but did accept that it reduced his moral culpability. |
| Uploaded 5 January 2026 | Herbert v DPP [2025] ACTCA 47Judgment summaryAPPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – where appellant sentenced to three years and three months’ imprisonment for aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – where appellant had swung sword at victim’s face, causing wounds to her chin requiring stitches – extremely serious offending – no persuasive evidence of remorse, contrition or capacity for rehabilitation – significant criminal history – no manifest excess demonstrated APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – aggravated offences – where appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – where charge involving offensive use of a weapon was consequently discontinued – where appellant instructed counsel at sentencing that he accepted statement of facts (which referred to the offence being aggravated and involving the use of a sword) – charge was not “upgraded” at sentence – no error in primary judge sentencing on the basis of agreed facts The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appellant’s appeal against sentence. The Court of Appeal found that the appellant’s sentence was not manifestly excessive, noting the extremely serious nature of the offending and the absence of any persuasive evidence of remorse by the appellant or a capacity for rehabilitation. The Court of Appeal also rejected a contention that primary judge erred in sentencing the appellant on the basis of the facts agreed between the parties. |
| Uploaded 5 January 2026 | Bye v Hend (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 555CIVIL LAW – NEGLIGENCE – Personal injury – electric shock from damaged light switch in rental property –defendants deny injury occurred and deny liability – reliability of plaintiff’s evidence in issue – inconsistency in plaintiff’s account of events – plaintiff’s evidence not accepted unless corroborated by independent contemporaneous evidence – plaintiff failed to establish she sustained electric shock – verdict for each defendant against plaintiff. |
| Uploaded 19 December 2025 | LP7 v Law Society (ACT) [2025] ACTSCFC 3LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – RENEWAL OF PRACTISING CERTIFICATE – Appeal from Law Society’s refusal to renew practising certificate – appellant acting for client in Federal Court discrimination litigation – consideration of settlement proposal involving appellant’s firm receiving significant payment – proposed settlement terms related to other clients of appellant’s firm – whether appellant breached fiduciary duties by seeking to procure financial benefit from a settlement for firm at which he was employed – where appellant (a supervised lawyer) acted with supervisor’s endorsement – where, though duties breached, persons to whom duties owed would have received favourable outcome from the settlement – circumstances unlikely to occur again – settlement was not actually reached – no evidence of Law Society taking consistent approach in relation to others involved in the matter – overall, appellant is not unfit to have practising certificate renewed LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – FIDUCIARY DUTIES – No profit and no conflict rules – where appellant received settlement offer under which appellant’s firm would agree not to bring class action against offeror – where appellant’s response, endorsed by his supervisor, included a sum payable to appellant’s firm for not bringing class action – inappropriate for solicitors to accept payments not to provide legal services The Full Court of the Supreme Court has ordered the renewal of a practitioner’s practising certificate. The Full Court found that, while LP7 breached his fiduciary duties, in the whole of the circumstances, the Full Court was not satisfied that he was unfit to hold a practising certificate. The Full Court noted the lack of guidance available to lawyers in similar situations, and that LP7 had sought to achieve a favourable outcome for the persons to whom he owed duties (notwithstanding that the duties were ultimately breached). |
| Uploaded 19 December 2025 | DPP v Adams (No 6) [2025] ACTSC 554 (SCC 65 of 2023; SCC 66 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Culpable driving causing death – drive a motor vehicle without consent – sentencing principles – where offending was of the utmost seriousness – where offender extremely culpable – where subjective features indicate need for community protection. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to the maximum period of imprisonment for 14 years with a non-parole period of 9 years for culpable driving causing death. The offending was regarded to be of the most serious instance of an offence of this kind. The offender’s subjective circumstances were acknowledged to enliven Bugmy principles, but the Court held it appropriate to make a reduction only to the non-parole period. The offender was also convicted of driving having never held a driver’s license and driving a motor vehicle without consent. |
| Uploaded 19 December 2025 | Susa v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2025] ACTSC 558STATUTES – INTERPRETATION – Planning and development – proposed development of site on heritage register – where Heritage Council advised Planning and Land Authority to approve proposed development despite non-compliance with heritage guidelines – where heritage guidelines picked up from old heritage places register without redrafting to accommodate them in new legislative context – whether advice from Heritage Council under s 60 of the Heritage Act 2004 (ACT) was required to be given in accordance with heritage guidelines due to s 27 of that Act – held that requirement in s 27 qualifies extent to which Heritage Council can give advice based on own opinion STATUTES – INTERPRETATION – Planning and development – whether proposed level in development was a “storey” or a “basement” under Territory Plan 2008 (ACT) – where definition of “basement” refers to “datum ground level” – where “datum ground level” must be determined in a field survey at the time of “Operational Acceptance” for the subdivision, if available – whether expression “Operational Acceptance” can be retrospectively applied – where “Operational Acceptance” is an administrative process of the ACT government and has only existed since 2010 – held that “Operational Acceptance” cannot apply to a subdivision that occurred in 1922 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – Error of law – where Heritage Council advice treated mandatory requirement in heritage guidelines as one that was open to be departed from – where Heritage Council did not provide advice about minimising non-compliance – Heritage Council did not give advice in accordance with heritage guidelines – erroneous advice of the Heritage Council meant the Planning and Land Authority failed to consider matters in s 119(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2007 (ACT) – errors of law by Heritage Council and Planning and Land Authority – decisions set aside The Supreme Court has set aside decisions of the ACT Heritage Council and the ACT Planning and Land Authority which led to the approval of a development application. The court found that, in advising the Authority, the Council did not comply with a mandatory requirement under the Heritage Act 2004 (ACT) to act in accordance with heritage guidelines. Accordingly, the Council made an error of law, and as a result of relying on its advice, the Authority also made an error of law. |
| Uploaded 18 December 2025 | Re an Application by G for Admission as a Legal Practitioner [2025] ACTSCFC 2PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – Qualifications and admissions – legal practitioner – application for admission to practice – suitability matters. ACTSCFC refuses application for admission as a lawyer on grounds that applicant had not demonstrated fitness in light of concerning suitability matters. |
| Uploaded 18 December 2025 | Sullivan v DPP [2025] ACTCA 53Judgment summaryAPPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Inconsistent verdicts – where appellant charged with four counts of sexual intercourse without consent, one count of act of indecency without consent, and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, all arising out of one incident – where appellant found guilty of three counts and not guilty of three counts – whether acquittals attributable only, or principally, to doubt about complainant’s credibility or compromise by jury – where jury entitled to judge facts for itself, and not bound by parties’ case theories – where verdicts reached were rationally open to jury acting reasonably and paying proper attention to the elements of each offence – appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal which claimed that a jury’s verdicts were inconsistent. The appellant contended that no reasonable jury could have arrived at the verdicts of guilty on three counts and not guilty on three counts. He submitted that the three acquittals could be attributable only, or principally, to doubts about the complainant’s credibility or compromise. The court held that the verdicts reached were rationally open to the jury acting reasonably and paying proper attention to the elements of each offence. |
| Uploaded 17 December 2025 | Bligh v Carnell [2025] ACTSC 550APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal of Magistrate’s decision to reject evidence of appellant – right to silence – inconsistencies in appellant’s accounts of incident – appellant gave positive account of incident – open to Magistrate to reject appellant’s account – no error disclosed APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal of finding in respect of self-defence – where self-defence raised by appellant’s version of events – Magistrate rejected appellant’s account – not necessary to address self-defence further – no error disclosed – appeal dismissed |
| Uploaded 17 December 2025 | Ismail v Potter [2025] ACTSC 551APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL FROM ACT MAGISTRATES COURT – Where appellant convicted of common assault arising from events outside a bar – whether evidence given by witnesses was inconsistent with police statements or other evidence – where police body-worn camera footage not played in Magistrates Court – where CCTV footage not available – whether appellant’s counsel was not competent – appeal dismissed. |
| Uploaded 17 December 2025 | DPP v James [2025] ACTSC 546 (SCC 136 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis – possess prohibited weapon – where the offender had illicit substance abuse issues – prospects of rehabilitation – significant criminal history – full discount for guilty pleas applied – two-year period of imprisonment imposed. |
| Uploaded 17 December 2025 | Marshall (a pseudonym) v Broome [2025] ACTSC 545CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from the Children’s Court – appeal against conviction – act of indecency without consent – appeal on grounds of unreasonable verdict – where the appellant’s evidence was rejected – where the complainant’s evidence was accepted – appeal dismissed. |
| Uploaded 17 December 2025 | Re an application under the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2024 [2025] ACTSC 549CIVIL LAW – HUMAN TISSUE – where sperm removed from deceased person posthumously – application by domestic partner of deceased for authority to store gametes to preserve possibility of later in vitro fertilisation – where applicant has not yet decided whether she will apply to use the sperm – whether the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act confers power to authorise storage of gametes prior to any application for authority to use gametes The Supreme Court granted an application seeking authorisation that a woman could store her deceased partner’s sperm for the purposes of potential future in vitro fertilisation. |
| Uploaded 16 December 2025 | Arnold (a pseudonym) v Snelleksz [2025] ACTSC 548APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – act of indecency in karaoke bar – whether Magistrate’s findings disclose factual or legal errors – whether verdict unreasonable – no errors disclosed – appeal dismissed. |
| Uploaded 16 December 2025 | Chol v Hughes [2025] ACTSC 547APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal of decision to reject admission of evidence on basis of relevance – whether improprieties in conduct of police when arresting appellant’s associate relevant to arrest of appellant – no causal connection between appellant’s arrest and associate’s arrest – temporal coexistence not indicative of causal link – no error disclosed APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal of decisions to admit evidence – improprieties and illegalities by police – whether body-worn camera use properly disclosed – whether police had power to arrest appellant and conduct breath analysis – s 138 discretion – discretion to admit improperly obtained evidence properly exercised – no errors disclosed APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Where Magistrate admitted CCTV footage – poor quality of CCTV footage – footage played at higher speed at trial than on night of incident – footage not hearsay evidence – no error in admitting footage as evidence APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal of verdict as unsafe and unreasonable – finding of guilt open to Magistrate on all the evidence – appeal dismissed |
| Uploaded 12 December 2025 | DPP v Timalsina (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 542 (SCC 45 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – acts of indecency – sexual intercourse without consent – jury trial – pathway by which reckless element established The Supreme Court has sentenced a 31-year-old offender to a total effective term of imprisonment of 3 years in respect of four offences of an act of indecency without consent and two offences of sexual intercourse without consent. The offender had been found guilty of the offences by a jury. The entire course of offending occurred during a short period of time at an art supplies store. The court found that the gravity of the offending and victim impact meant that an intensive correction order was not appropriate, however given the significant period of time spent in pre-sentence custody, the sentence that was imposed will be partially suspended from 1 June 2026 |
| Uploaded 11 December 2025 | DPP v Ayuel (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 541CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Trial by judge alone – arson (two counts) – circumstantial evidence – identification evidence – CCTV footage – coincidence reasoning – absence of evidence placing accused at scene of first fire EVIDENCE – ADMISSIONS – Record of interview – whether accused provided with proper cautions – where accused stated she wished to speak to her lawyer and declined to speak with police – whether police allowed reasonable time for accused to contact her lawyer – interview excluded The Supreme Court has found the accused not guilty of one count of arson but guilty of the second count of arson. The court considered circumstantial evidence, identification evidence in the form of CCTV footage, and coincidence reasoning. The court excluded accused’s record of interview as police did not allow reasonable time for her to contact her lawyer. |
| Uploaded 10 December 2025 | DPP v Newman (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 528 (SCC 162 of 2024; SCC 261 of 2025; SCC 274 of 2025; SCC 330 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Pilot Circle Sentencing List – Elders and Respected Persons Panel – wounding – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – use carriage service to threaten serious harm – use carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence – use carriage service to threaten to kill – offending whilst on conditional liberty – offender in breach of previous sentencing orders – profoundly disadvantaged childhood – reduction in moral culpability – guarded prospects of rehabilitation – significant criminal history – parity considerations – offender sentenced to a partially suspended period of imprisonment upon entering into a good behaviour order. |
| Uploaded 10 December 2025 | Mastalerz v DPP [2025] ACTCA 32APPEAL – SENTENCE APPEAL – Fresh and new evidence – consideration of s 37N Supreme Court Act – where material not before sentencing judge through no fault of the appellant – where material could have affected sentence imposed – whether court required to be satisfied that sentence would have been different with material considered. |
| Uploaded 10 December 2025 | DPP v Kristiansen [2025] ACTSC 536 (SCC 154 of 2025, SCC 155 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – numerous driving offences – burglary – theft – trespass – unlawful possession stolen property – where almost a year spent in presentence custody – whether offender eligible for drug and alcohol treatment order for remainder of sentence. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender in respect of 47 separate offences, committed over 9 separate occasions between July and December 2024. The total effective term of imprisonment imposed was 6 years, 1 month and 23 days. The offences included numerous driving offences, drug possession, burglary and theft. The offender had a lengthy criminal history and had a history of drug addiction, which he had successfully managed for 5 years before lapsing following a relationship break-up. As the combined length of the sentence made the offender ineligible for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order and the offender had spent almost a year in pre-sentence custody referable to the offending, the offender was ordered to serve a further period of approximately 6 months in full-time custody, with the remainder of the sentence suspended to allow for the offender to pursue targeted drug rehabilitation while subject to a good behaviour order. |
| Uploaded 10 December 2025 | Dillon-Nasr v Marshall [2025] ACTSC 534APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Fitness to plead – appeal of Magistrate’s decision finding appellant fit to plead – where appellant suffers from intellectual disability – where expert evidence points toward unfitness to plead – no compelling reason to reject expert evidence – appellant cannot give instructions to lawyers – appellant unfit to plead on balance of probabilities – appeal allowed. The ACT Supreme Court has allowed an appeal against a Magistrates Court finding that the appellant was fit to plead. |
| Uploaded 9 December 2025 | O’Connell v DPP (No 2) [2025] ACTCA 21APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – where jury found appellant guilty of murder – where appellate court quashed conviction – consideration of appellant’s custodial status. |
| Uploaded 9 December 2025 | DPP v Hojlund [2025] ACTCA 52Judgment summary APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal against sentence – sexual intercourse without consent and related offending – separate instances of offending against two victims who were unconscious – whether sentence manifestly inadequate – where no overt error asserted in the sentencing reasons – where substantial term of imprisonment imposed – where some concurrency provided in sentences in application of principle of totality – manifest inadequacy not demonstrated – appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The appeal was brought in relation to a sentence imposed by a judge of this Court for sexual and related offences by the respondent against an 18-year-old female victim and a male victim following pleas of guilty. The overall head sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was a term of just over 9 years and 3 months of imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years. The appellant contended that both the sentences imposed for each individual offence was manifestly inadequate and the overall sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. As the appellant did not identify any express error in the sentencing judge’s reasons, the appeal was dismissed and the Court concluded that the sentence imposed was well within the sentencing judge’s discretion. |
| Uploaded 9 December 2025 | Druett v Steel [2025] ACTSC 538APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – assault – whether primary Magistrate misapplied Liberato direction – appellant gave bare denial of offending conduct – implied Magistrate rejected appellant’s account – no misapplication of direction – alleged inconsistencies in complainant’s evidence – alleged inconsistencies not made out – no error or unreasonableness disclosed – appeal dismissed The ACT Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against guilty verdicts in the Magistrates Court in relation to three charges of assault. The Court found there were no errors disclosed in the Magistrate’s reasons, and that the verdicts reached were not unreasonable. |
| Uploaded 8 December 2025 | Bolaram v ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2025] ACTSC 537INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for leave to appeal from interlocutory directions of Senior Deputy Registrar – broad discretion to make directions – circumstances weigh against granting leave – leave refused. |
| Uploaded 8 December 2025 | DPP v O’Connell (No 6) [2025] ACTSC 529 (SCC 251 of 2022)SummaryCRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – manslaughter – re-sentence following Court of Appeal’s substitution of murder verdict with manslaughter verdict – where offender drove utility truck with victim on the bonnet – where victim fell from the vehicle and collided with the roadway causing her death – whether offender acted with the purpose of dislodging the victim – findings as to intent – where offending occurred within a family violence context – where offending occurred in presence of a young person – whether sentence imposed should be accumulated on sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court for unrelated offending – partial accumulation – 10 years’ imprisonment imposed – non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months. The Supreme Court has resentenced an offender following the Court of Appeal’s substitution of his murder verdict with a manslaughter verdict. The offender drove over with the victim on the bonnet of his vehicle. The victim fell and suffered a fatal head injury. The offender was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months, accumulated by 6 months on an existing sentence. |
| Uploaded 8 December 2025 | DPP v Cooper (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 533 (SCC 211 of 2023; SCC 212 of 2023; SCC 213 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCE LIST – cancellation application – whether offender unwilling or unlikely to comply with conditions of treatment order – whether continuation of treatment and supervision component of treatment order unlikely to achieve the objects of the order – treatment order cancelled – offender resentenced. The Supreme Court has cancelled a drug and alcohol treatment order of almost 4 years’ duration in respect of an offender who had previously been sentenced in 2023 for numerous burglary, theft and driving offences. The offender had a history of non-compliance in the 2 years that had passed since the order was made. Having regard to the periods in full-time custody that the offender had spent since that time, and the amount of time the offender had participated in residential rehabilitative programs, the offender was resentenced and a partially suspended sentence was imposed. |
| Uploaded 5 December 2025 | DPP v Millhouse (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 532 (SCC 138 of 2025; SCC 139 of 2025; SCC 140 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated reckless threat to kill – aggravated common assault – trespass – family violence context – where offender pushed and threatened to kill partner after she asked him to stop living with her – where offender had traumatic brain injury, resulting in a moderate disability in cognitive functioning and a severe to extreme disability in social participation – reduced moral culpability – pleas of guilty – good behaviour order. |
| Uploaded 5 December 2025 | Al-Slbi v C1 Formwork Group Pty Ltd [2025] ACTSC 530PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to extend time for service of expert evidence – r 1205 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – where refusal of application would create significant risk of prejudice to the plaintiff – contention that extension would put hearing date at risk – where reason for delay shown to be error by legal representatives – where plaintiff solicitor has provided undertaking regarding adverse costs order – extension of time for service of expert evidence permitted. |
| Uploaded 4 December 2025 | Wang v Canberra Metro Operations Pty Ltd [2025] ACTSC 531CIVIL PROCEDURE – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – Application for strike out of statement of claim – application for dismissal of proceedings – leave granted for plaintiff’s daughter to represent father in application – plaintiff has no English language skills – allegations of incident on Canberra Metro – r 425 of the Rules – statement of claim struck out in whole with leave to replead. |
| Uploaded 3 December 2025 | DPP v Appleton [2025] ACTSC 527 (SCC 158 of 2024; SCC 260 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – theft – burglary – justice offences – perverting the course of justice – factors relevant to dishonesty offences – usefulness of guideline judgment from NSW in assessing objective seriousness – seriousness of justice offences – where utilitarian value of guilty plea frustrated by justice offences – where justice offences were self-sabotaging – where offender’s character references were contradicted by offender’s communications to chambers. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for theft, burglary and justice offences. The offender was sentenced to a total of four years imprisonment and ordered to make reparations. The Court noted that the utilitarian value of the offender’s guilty plea was frustrated by the ongoing justice offences. |
| Uploaded 3 December 2025 | Quach v Commissioner of Taxation [2025] ACTCA 50Judgments summaryAPPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal of dismissal of proceedings – assertion that respondent applied res judicata in interlocutory proceeding – contention as to whether decision of Mossop J interlocutory – assertion of contempt – operation of res judicata – no obvious relationship between legal principles relied upon and single ground of appeal – clear lack of finality in subject decision – appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal of a decision of the ACT Supreme Court dismissing proceedings in which the appellant had alleged the respondent had committed contempt of court by misleading the Court as to the interlocutory nature of a decision which denied a party leave to appeal. The Court found that the appeal was without basis and observed that the relevant decision as to leave to appeal was in fact interlocutory. |
| Uploaded 2 December 2025 | Bennelong Medical Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2025] ACTCA 49Judgment summaryAPPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal of dismissal of proceedings – where appellant did not appear at first instance hearing – claim dismissed by primary judge under r 1505(2) of CPR – where director of appellant corporation purported to represent appellant at first instance – r 30(4) of CPR – leave required for director to represent corporation – trial judge denied leave – no denial of procedural fairness by trial judge – no error disclosed – appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of the appellant corporation’s claim due to non-appearance at trial. In dismissing the appeal, the Court found there was no procedural unfairness in the primary judge’s decision to refuse leave for the appellant to be represented by its director. |
| Uploaded 2 December 2025 | DPP v Hagen [2025] ACTSC 519 (SCC 130 of 2024; SCC 387 of 2024; SCC 388 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Attempted aggravated burglary contrary - Assault occasioning actual bodily harm - Unlawful possession of stolen property - Drive while licence suspended – Victim Impact Statement – Bugmy considerations. |
| Uploaded 1 December 2025 | DPP v Myers (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 516CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Indicative sentence – intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm – where judge at special hearing satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that accused engaged in conduct required for the offence – where the offence was a serious offence – consideration of criteria in s 308 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – nature and extent of mental impairment – accused’s health and safety likely to be substantially impaired if released – accused likely to be a danger to the community if released – order that accused be detained in custody for immediate review by the ACAT – nominated term of two years’ imprisonment. |
| Uploaded 28 November 2025 | DPP v Maeng [2025] ACTSC 520 (SCC 190 of 2024; SCC 394 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – common assault (aggravated, family violence) – rolled up count of incident where offender kicked his wife in stomach and put his hands around her neck following argument about money – plea of guilty at trial – protection of victim and community – positive subjective circumstances with no prior convictions – wholly suspended sentence imposed. The Supreme Court has sentenced this offender for one rolled up count of common assault (aggravated by family violence) for an incident where the offender kicked his wife in the stomach and put his hands around her neck following argument about money. The court noted the plea of guilty at trial, the need for the protection of the victim and community, and the offender’s positive subjective circumstances. The court imposed a wholly suspended sentence. |
| Uploaded 27 November 2025 | Jones (a pseudonym) v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn [2025] ACTSC 522CONTRACTS – Application to set aside deed of settlement under Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002, s 114K – where proceedings that were settled constituted an “abuse settlement agreement” – where legal barriers existed at the time of settlement that have since been removed – settlement agreement set aside. |
| Uploaded 27 November 2025 | Eady (a pseudonym) v Daramalan College Ltd [2025] ACTSC 523CONTRACTS – Application to set aside deed of settlement under Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002, s 114K – where proceedings that were settled constituted an “abuse settlement agreement” – where legal barriers existed at the time of settlement that have since been removed – settlement agreement set aside. |
| Uploaded 27 November 2025 | Smith (a pseudonym) v Daramalan College Ltd [2025] ACTSC 521CONTRACTS – Application to set aside deed of settlement under Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002, s 114K – where proceedings that were settled constituted an “abuse settlement agreement” – where legal barriers existed at the time of settlement – where settlement figure fell far below full compensation or reasonable compromise of claim – settlement agreement set aside. |
| Uploaded 27 November 2025 | Arjonilla v ACT [2025] ACTSC 223CIVIL LAW – practice and procedure – personal injury – s 79 Civil Law (Wrongs) Act – whether urgent need to commence proceedings. |
| Uploaded 27 November 2025 | Skotnicki v Jamieson [2025] ACTSC 222CIVIL LAW – practice and procedure – personal injury – s 79 Civil Law (Wrongs) Act – whether urgent need to commence proceedings. |
| Uploaded 27 November 2025 | Girvan v Civil Construction Hire Pty Ltd [2025] ACTSC 131CIVIL PROCEDURE – Originating Claim – claim for damages for personal injuries – where proceedings commenced before plaintiff had complied with the requirements of Ch 5 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) – where limitation period was about to expire. |
| Uploaded 27 November 2025 | DPP v Creighton (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 511 (SCC 82 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – incest on a person under 10 years of age – use carriage service to transmit child abuse material – use child for the production of child exploitation material – where the offender is a young person – where the young person suffers from Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – whether the prosecution case was overwhelming – where case only overwhelming because of the admissions of the young person – full discount for guilty pleas applied – two year suspended sentence imposed – young person not a registerable offender. The Supreme Court has sentenced a young person for two counts of incest on a person under 10 years, and one count of using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material. The young person was sentenced to two years imprisonment, fully suspended upon his entry into a good behaviour order. |
| Uploaded 27 November 2025 | Eren v DPP [2025] ACTCA 14CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal – appeal against evidentiary ruling – expert evidence – memory evidence – discretion to exclude evidence – where expert expressed opinion concerning “flashbacks” experienced by complainant during alleged assault – undesirability of truncating criminal trial. |
| Uploaded 27 November 2025 | Tanaskovic v ACT [2025] ACTSC 202CIVIL LAW – practice and procedure – personal injury – s 79 Civil Law (Wrongs) Act – whether urgent need to commence proceedings – where limitation period due to expire. |
| Uploaded 26 November 2025 | DPP v Robins (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 518 (SCC 332 of 2023; SCC 333 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – choke, suffocate or strangle – common assault – family violence – where offender suffers post-traumatic stress disorder – where offender has demonstrated incomplete remorse – where offending occurred in the presence of the offender and victim’s child – imprisonment for four years and five months – non-parole period of two years and three months imposed. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for four counts of choke, suffocate or strangle, and one count of common assault. The offending was aggravated by family violence. The offender was sentenced to four years and five months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and three months. |
| Uploaded 26 November 2025 | Gul v Blackburn [2025] ACTSC 224CIVIL LAW – practice and procedure – personal injury – motor vehicle accident – whether urgent need to commence proceedings – leave sought nunc pro tunc. |
| Uploaded 24 November 2025 | M Plus Advisers Pty Ltd v Frino [2025] ACTSC 517CIVIL PROCEDURE – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for summary judgment in favour of defendants – whether plaintiff’s claim bound to fail – unresolved factual contentions – not open to conclude claim bound to fail – application dismissed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – Application to strike out statement of claim in whole – whether pleadings disclose reasonable cause of action – court must proceed on basis factual allegations will be proved – pleadings raise prospect of fiduciary breach by first defendant – application dismissed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – Application to strike out statement of claim in part – requirement of pleadings to give defendants notice of case to be met – where deficiencies in pleading of material facts – failure to specifically plead allegations of dishonesty and fraud – parts of pleadings struck out PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ADMISSIBILITY – Where statements from settlement conference and communications marked “without prejudice” contained in affidavit – whether settlement negotiations bona fide – lack of bona fides not established – privilege against disclosure in s 131 of Evidence Act applies – evidence inadmissible PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ADMISSIBILITY – Where hearsay evidence contained in affidavit – whether exception in s 75 of Evidence Act applies – hearing of summary judgment application is not interlocutory – s 75 does not apply – evidence inadmissible The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by the defendants seeking summary judgment against the plaintiff or strike out of the plaintiff’s pleadings in their entirety. The Court found there were unresolved factual disputes in proceedings and that the pleadings raised the prospect of an arguable fiduciary breach by the first defendant. The Court found deficiencies in the plaintiff’s pleading of material facts, and made orders for the pleadings to be struck out in part with leave to replead. |
| Uploaded 21 November 2025 | DPP v McFadden (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 515 (SCC 201 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – persistent sexual abuse, grooming and aggravated production and possession of child exploitation material – offender was first victim’s stepparent and was acting effectively in loco parentis to second victim – prosecution case overwhelmingly strong – consideration of victim safety – abhorrent offending – sentencing in relation to Commonwealth and Territory offences – nine years and six months’ imprisonment imposed, with six-year non-parole period. The Supreme Court has sentenced this offender to 9.5 years’ imprisonment with a six-year non-parole period for persistent sexual abuse, grooming and aggravated production and possession of child exploitation material. The offender was the first victim’s stepparent and was acting effectively in loco parentis to the second victim. |
| Uploaded 21 November 2025 | DPP v Myers (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 514CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Special hearing due to unfitness to plead – special hearing conducted by judge alone – allegation of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm – whether proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in the conduct required for the offence charged – consideration of whether the offending falls within the definition of serious offence. |
| Uploaded 20 November 2025 | DPP v Grey [2025] ACTSC 509 (SCC 88 of 2025; SCC 89 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offender pleaded guilty to one count of culpable driving causing death – where offender is 20 years old, 18 at the time of offending – consideration of disadvantaged background and prospects of rehabilitation against denunciation, recognition of harm done to victims and general deterrence – sentence of imprisonment imposed. |
| Uploaded 19 November 2025 | Gonyley v Gaughran [2025] ACTSC 513CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from Magistrates Court – appeal against conviction – appeal against sentence – pre-conditions to police power to arrest without warrant pursuant to s 212 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – whether magistrate erred in finding detention was lawful – necessary preconditions for detention pursuant to the Intoxicated People (Care and Protection) Act 1994 (ACT) – meaning of ‘public place’ – statutory interpretation – police power to conduct frisk search – appellant not detained in a public place – finding of unlawful detention. |
| Uploaded 19 November 2025 | Figura v DPP [2025] ACTCA 48Judgment SummaryAPPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – driving offences – appellant initially sentenced to a DATO – DATO subsequently cancelled – whether primary judge erred in imposing the original suspended sentence – where resulting error operated in favour of appellant – whether error in favour of appellant a material error requiring resentence – sentence including non-parole period not manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal against sentence. The appellant was sentenced to a DATO, which was subsequently cancelled. Upon cancellation, the primary judge reimposed the sentence that had been suspended upon the appellant’s entry into the DATO. The appellant appealed on the ground that the imposed sentence was manifestly inadequate. An error was identified in the method utilised by the primary judge to reimpose the original sentence. However, as the error operated to the appellant’s advantage, the Court’s duty to resentence was not enlivened. The Court found there was no error in the decision to reimpose the original sentence; the original sentence itself; or the new non-parole period. The sentence was not manifestly excessive. |
| Uploaded 19 November 2025 | DPP v Bobb [2025] ACTSC 491 (SCC 39 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – use carriage service to procure person under 16 – use carriage service for indecent communication to person under 16 – use carriage service for child abuse material – act of indecency on person under 16 – traumatic childhood – demonstrated remorse – good prospects of rehabilitation – hardship to family – sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years and 1 month CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – structure of sentence for Commonwealth and Territory offences – sentence for Territory offence suspended after 12 months – recognizance release order made The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender on two counts of using a carriage service to procure a person under 16, one count of using a carriage service to transmit an indecent communication to a person under 16, three counts of using a carriage service for child abuse material, and one count of committing an act of indecency on a person under 16. The offender received a head sentence of 3 years and 1 month imprisonment. The offender will be released from custody after 15 months upon entering a recognizance release order. |
| Uploaded 19 November 2025 | Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shearman (No 7) [2025] ACTSC 510CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – building dispute – non-appearance of self-represented litigant – medical evidence received explaining non-appearance – second defendant presently unfit to continue in proceedings – consideration as to path to finalisation of hearing. |
| Uploaded 17 November 2025 | Baker (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth [2025] ACTSC 506CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – Application for leave to require production of records – where records may contain protected confidence evidence – legitimate forensic purpose test – threshold for legitimate forensic purpose – where plaintiff alleges psychological injury including exacerbation of underlying psychological condition – legitimate forensic purpose established – leave granted. |
| Uploaded 17 November 2025 | Moy v ACT [2025] ACTSC 505CIVIL PROCEDURE – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Claim for personal injury compensation – pre-court procedures under Ch 5 of the Civil Law Wrongs Act 2002 (ACT) – proceedings commenced before completion of pre-court procedures – whether leave to commence required under s 79 – non-compliance by defendant does not make proceedings a nullity – no action by plaintiff to address defendant’s non-compliance – no leave required STATUTES – INTERPRETATION - Civil Law Wrongs Act 2002 (ACT), Ch 5 – whether Ch 5 pre-court procedures are procedural or substantive rules – provisions of CLW Act based on equivalent Queensland statute – comparison with provisions of Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) – Ch 5 rules are procedural CIVIL PROCEDURE - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for stay of proceedings – overarching purpose of civil procedure rules – no abuse of process identified – application dismissed The ACT Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to continue proceedings and has dismissed the first defendant’s application to stay proceedings. The Court found that, although the first defendant had not fully complied with pre-court procedures by the time proceedings were commenced, this did not render proceedings a nullity. The plaintiff therefore did not need leave to continue proceedings. |
| Uploaded 17 November 2025 | Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Hurst-Meyers [2025] ACTSC 177CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – BANKRUPTCY – application to strike out defence – proceedings brought by lender to enforce security loan – where defendant an undischarged bankrupt – whether defendant has standing to be heard in defence of the plaintiff’s claim. |
| Uploaded 14 November 2025 | Dimov v The Owners, Units Plan 2225 (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 502PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – r 1753 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 – application for a personal costs order against plaintiff’s previous solicitor – timing of application – where legal privilege claimed – whether delay or negligence by solicitors caused adjournment of hearing – whether conduct warranted exercise of court’s discretion – whether indemnity costs order against plaintiff for costs thrown away by vacation of hearing should be set aside The Supreme Court has dismissed an application brought by the plaintiff in a dispute about trespass arising from encroachments of a neighbouring building. The application sought that the costs thrown away by the vacation of a hearing be paid personally by his former solicitors. The plaintiff contended that his former solicitors failed to properly prepare the case for hearing, which necessitated an adjournment. The application was brought prior to the substantive hearing of the proceeding and legal privilege in relation to the advice given was claimed. The Court considered the principles applying to the discretion to make a personal costs order against legal practitioners and found that the conduct did not warrant the making of the order. |
| Uploaded 14 November 2025 | DPP v Maher (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 503 (SCC 398 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – theft – judge alone trial – unauthorised use of credit cards – offending in question occurred over period of two months – where offender and complainant co-habiting – where complainant in position of significant reliance and vulnerability – egregious breach of trust – little remorse or insight expressed – significant alcohol and drug problem – some criminal history – stable employment and accommodation – family support – good behaviour order – reparation order – community service order |
| Uploaded 14 November 2025 | DPP v Smith (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 501 (SCC 86 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – persistent sexual abuse of child or young person under special care – offending occurred over three years – numerous instances of sexual intercourse – offending did not involve violence or abuse (beyond the acts themselves) – victim taken advantage of – foster care system exploited – personal circumstances make specific deterrence less significant and offender has recognised disgraceful nature of conduct The Supreme Court has sentenced this offender to 12.5 years’ imprisonment for persistent sexual abuse of a child or young person under his special care. The offending occurred over a number of years, and while not involving violence (beyond the acts themselves), the victim was taken advantage of and the foster care system was exploited. The court noted the disgraceful nature of the conduct. |
| Uploaded 14 November 2025 | DPP v Smith (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 500STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – CRIMINAL OFFENCE PROVISIONS – Maximum penalty under s 56 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – latest instalment in history of construction of s 56 – where maximum penalty for pre 2018 offending defined by 1991 maximum penalty (which ranges from seven years to life imprisonment) – where 1991 maximum penalty defined by reference to whether “another offence” was committed during relationship – where offender pleaded guilty to one count of persistent sexual abuse – court must determine whether offender committed offences in addition to the conduct required to enliven s 56 STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – CRIMINAL OFFENCE PROVISIONS – Renumbering – where offence provision (and Part in which offence contained) renumbered – where it may be necessary to consider whether offender committed offences under previous versions of Crimes Act – whether renumbering means that offender did not commit an offence “under this Part” because the Part had been renumbered – where renumbering is routine in the ACT – offender did commit offences “under this Part” CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pleas – where prosecution submitted that, if the court determined a lesser maximum penalty applied, the court should reject offender’s guilty plea – where plea had been accepted by prosecution – no basis for the court to reject the plea identified |
| Uploaded 13 November 2025 | R v DS [2025] ACTSC 495 (SCC 177 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Young offender – Aggravated robbery – Dishonestly ride motor vehicle without consent – Theft – Aggravated burglary with intent to steal – Fail to provide name – Verdins principles – Bugmy principles – Henry principles – Delay in proceedings – Where a deferred sentence order was made in 2013 |
| Uploaded 13 November 2025 | DPP v Morton [2025] ACTSC 485 (SCC 148 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – theft – funds taken from childcare centre – where offender was director of childcare centre – breach of trust – traumatic background – mental illness – sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years – suspended after 3 months The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for three counts of theft. The offender was the director of a not-for-profit childcare centre, and had used the childcare centre’s funds for personal purposes. The offender was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment, suspended after 3 months. A Good Behaviour Order was imposed for the remainder of the sentence, which included 200 hours of community service work. |
| Uploaded 12 November 2025 | Decision Restricted [2025] ACTSC 497CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Tendency evidence – application to adduce tendence evidence of three complainants and one witness – ‘stealthing’ – whether Court may amend tendency notice – proper interpretation of the tendency notice – where one particularised tendency has significant probative value – where probative value outweighs unfair prejudice – application allowed in part. As the judgment is restricted, it is not publicly available. Any enquires about this decision should be directed to Baker J’s chambers. Associate.BakerJ@courts.act.gov.au |
| Uploaded 12 November 2025 | R v Raftery (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 138CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Breach of good behaviour orders attached to a suspended sentence – offender on pathway to rehabilitation – serious health condition – breach offence of low objective seriousness – good behaviour order cancelled – offender resentenced to a further good behaviour order for a period of 12 months. |
| Uploaded 12 November 2025 | Reynolds v Tsirimokos [2025] ACTSC 176CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to give evidence by affidavit – where proceedings concern complex commercial transaction – where plaintiff requires translator. |
| Uploaded 12 November 2025 | Dillon (by her litigation guardian Humphreys) v Tasmania [2025] ACTSC 132CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Concurrent jurisdiction – Application to have proceedings transferred to Tasmania under cross-vesting legislation – where cause of action accrued in Tasmania – where plaintiff a minor – consideration of relevant factors and principles – whether in the interests of justice that the proceedings be determined in Tasmania. |
| Uploaded 10 November 2025 | DPP v Al-Mofathel [2025] ACTSC 493 (SCC 8 of 2025; SCC 9 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – whether drug and treatment order appropriate. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a term of imprisonment for 1 year and 4 months, for an offence of aggravated burglary and the related offending of common assault and minor theft. The offender had trespassed with a co-offender on a residential property while the occupants were home, with a claw hammer and a club hammer. During the offending one of the occupants was assaulted and their mobile phone and wallet were taken by the offenders. The offender had spent more than a year in custody relating to other offending. The Court imposed a drug and alcohol treatment order for the remainder of the sentence. |
| Uploaded 7 November 2025 | DPP v Gowshall [2025] ACTSC 490 (SCC 46 of 2025, SCC 47 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – driving at or near police – aggravated dangerous driving – objectively serious offending – profound impact on victims – degree of remorse for offending – underlying mental health condition – drug use – both contributing to reckless behaviour – good work record – family support – assessed as suitable for intensive corrections order. |
| Uploaded 7 November 2025 | DPP v Fensom [2025] ACTSC 272 (SCC 6 of 2025; SCC 7 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – joint commission theft – joint commission burglary – where offender was suffering from drug-induced psychosis – where offender had complex history of trauma and dysfunction – where rehabilitation is the predominant purpose in sentence – consideration of appropriateness of Griffiths remand. |
| Uploaded 7 November 2025 | DPP v Ownsworth [2025] ACTSC 453 (SCC 88 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – choke, suffocate, strangle (family violence) – victim rendered unconscious – additional victim impact due to vacated trials – denunciation, deterrence and recognition of harm to victim and community significant – no criminal history – good prospects of avoiding further offending – intensive correction order with community service. The Supreme Court has sentenced this offender for a single count of choke, suffocate, strangle (family violence), where the victim was rendered unconscious. The court noted the offender had no criminal history and good prospects of rehabilitation. The court also noted the additional victim impact due to vacated trials, observing that denunciation, deterrence and recognition of harm to the victim and the community were significant. |
| Uploaded 5 November 2025 | ZA v Director General, Community Services Directorate [2025] ACTCA 43APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Dismissal for want of prosecution – where appellant sought determination of appeal on the papers – where appellant appeared at directions hearing and then failed to appear on four occasions over three months and failed to serve appeal documents on respondent – r 5603 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – power exercised by court on its own initiative – guillotine order – appeal dismissed for want of prosecution unless affidavit proving service filed within specified timeframe. The Supreme Court has published reasons for making a guillotine order that an appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution unless the appellant filed an affidavit proving service of the appeal documents within a specified timeframe. The appellant had appeared at a directions hearing, then failed to appear on four occasions over three months and failed to serve the appeal documents on the respondent. |
| Uploaded 5 November 2025 | Dukic v Tadic [2025] ACTSC 455APPEAL – APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATES COURT – Appeal against sentence – ground of manifest excess – where offences included unlawful possession of stolen property, obtaining property by deception, and driving offences – principles in House v The King – principle of totality – current sentencing practice – objective seriousness of offending – use of stolen credit cards not victimless – purposes of sentencing – sentences imposed clearly within the scope of the proper exercise of the magistrate’s sentencing discretion – appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal from the Magistrates Court. In the Magistrates Court, the appellant was sentenced in relation to offences including unlawful possession of stolen property, obtaining property by deception, and driving offences. The appellant argued that the sentences imposed by the magistrate were manifestly excessive. The Supreme Court found that the sentences imposed were clearly within the scope of the proper exercise of the magistrate’s sentencing discretion. |
| Uploaded 5 November 2025 | DPP v Donnelly [2025] ACTSC 452 (SCC 229 of 2024; SCC 230 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – capture and distribution of intimate visual image or data – sexual intercourse without consent – where images only distributed to victim – where offender failed to appreciate social cues due to autism spectrum disorder – where offender has accepted responsibility – denunciation and recognition of harm to victim significant – deterrence of sexual offending between persons who have met via internet dating applications – fines, good behaviour orders and intensive correction order imposed (with community service component). The Supreme Court has sentenced the offender for capture and distribution of intimate visual image or data and sexual intercourse without consent. The court observed that the failure by the offender to appreciate social cues due to autism spectrum disorder contributed to the offending, noted that the offender has accepted responsibility, and recognised the importance of denunciation, recognition of the harm to victim, and deterrence of sexual offending between persons who have met via internet dating applications. |
| Uploaded 3 November 2025 | Hartfield v Calvary Healthcare ACT Ltd (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 488NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – where plaintiff suffered ectopic pregnancy – where plaintiff had a history of ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage – where plaintiff discharged from hospital where ectopic pregnancy had not been excluded – where ectopic pregnancy ruptured while the plaintiff was at home – where urgent salpingectomy later performed – where plaintiff rendered unable to naturally conceive NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – whether defendant breached its duty of care in failing to perform a diagnostic laparoscopy during the plaintiff’s first hospital admission – where expert evidence was that laparoscopy presents its own risks – where expert evidence suggests likelihood of laparoscopy leading to successful salpingostomy was low – breach of duty and causation on primary case not established NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – whether hospital breached its duty of care in discharging the plaintiff while at risk of ectopic pregnancy without providing adequate advice concerning risk of ectopic pregnancy – where plaintiff suffered psychiatric injury – whether contributory negligence – claim established – damages awarded The Supreme Court has found that the defendant was negligent in discharging the plaintiff from hospital while she was suffering a possible ectopic pregnancy without giving her an opportunity to remain in hospital for observation and pain management, and without adequately informing the plaintiff of her heightened risk of an ectopic pregnancy, and the significance of an increase in pain in connection with that condition. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $118,306. |
| Uploaded 3 November 2025 | DPP v Shang (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 484 (SCC 246 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary by joint commission – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – where no prior criminal history and conduct isolated – parity with sentence imposed for co-offender – partially suspended sentence appropriate. The Supreme Court has sentenced a 38-year-old offender to a total effective sentence of imprisonment for one year, 9 months and 4 days for an aggravated burglary offence and two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The offender and a co-offender had devised a scheme to gain entry to a residential property in Belconnen, where they believed they would find a person who owed them money. However, once inside the property, they discovered that the debtor was not there. They then remained in the property without permission of the occupants, which escalated into an argument between the offenders and the occupants, and physical violence ensued. The offender had no prior criminal history and parity considerations operated. The sentence was suspended from the date of imposition. |
| Uploaded 3 November 2025 | DPP v Niatin [2025] ACTSC 473 (SCC 127 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse without consent – attempt sexual intercourse without consent – where victim was a sex worker – where sex workers are particularly vulnerable to offences of this kind – where offender faced hardship in custody due to language difficulties – where offender faced deportation upon release from custody – sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment – non-parole period of 15 months. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for one count of sexual intercourse without consent, and one count of attempt sexual intercourse without consent. The victim was a sex worker. The offender faced hardship in custody due to language barriers, and was to be deported when released from custody. The offender was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. A non-parole period of 15 months was imposed. |
| Uploaded 3 November 2025 | DPP v Robertson [2024] ACTSC 78CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – pre-trial application – tendency evidence - application to adduce tendency evidence – significant probative value – whether probative value of evidence outweighs danger of unfair prejudice - unfair prejudice may be dealt with by appropriate jury directions. The publication restriction has been lifted. |
| Uploaded 31 October 2025 | R v Mindelis 2025] ACTSC 482 (SCC 108 of 2025; SCC 109 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Burglary – Theft – Enter airside area without permission – Take motor without authority – Endanger safety of Commonwealth aerodrome – Damage property – Drive unlicenced – Bugmy principles – Verdins principles |
| Uploaded 31 October 2025 | DPP v Ali (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 486 (SCC 81 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – act of indecency upon a person under the age of 10 years – offender employed as educator at a childcare centre – single act of indecency on 4-year-old child attending centre – significant breach of trust – general deterrence of prime importance – prospect of deportation at conclusion of sentence of imprisonment – sentence of full-time imprisonment imposed The ACTSC has sentenced an offender for a single offence of committing an act of indecency upon a person under the age of 10 years, pursuant to s 61(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The offending involved the offender touching a four-year-old child whilst employed at a childcare centre in the ACT and follows the sentencing by Baker J in 2023 of this same offender for similar offending at the same childcare centre. The offender received an overall sentence of two years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 months. |
| Uploaded 30 October 2025 | DPP v Downs [2025] ACTSC 481 (SCC 380 of 2024; SCC 381 of 2024; SCC 87 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – family violence offences – breaches of family violence order – breaches of suspended sentence The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a term of imprisonment for 1 year, 4 months and 1 day, for a number of breaches of a family violence order involving the offender’s physical presence within a proscribed distance of a number of protected persons as well as phone and text message. The conduct also put the offender in breach of two suspended sentences for common assault, which were each aggravated by the presence of family violence. The court cancelled the good behaviour orders and determined that the total term of imprisonment of 2 months and 15 days for the suspended sentences should be imposed. The remainder of the sentence will be suspended from 1 March 2026. |
| Uploaded 30 October 2025 | DPP v Robertson (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 448 (SCC 231 of 2023; SCC 232 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – common assault – assault occasioning actual bodily harm –offending in a domestic violence context with a power imbalance – offences at low end of mid range of objective seriousness – objections to victim impact statement – late plea of guilty – no offending for 11 years – prospects that ageing and efforts at education will reduce risk of violence in future – fine and good behaviour orders with community service requirements imposed. CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach of good behaviour order – appropriate to resentence due to passage of time and limited offending in intervening period – good behaviour order with community service requirement imposed. The Supreme Court has published the reasons for sentence of an offender charged with two counts of common assault and two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm. The court noted that the offending occurred in a domestic violence context and involved a power imbalance, that the offender had not offended for 11 years, and that there were prospects that his age and efforts at education would reduce his future risk of violence. The court imposed a fine and good behaviour orders with community service requirements. |
| Uploaded 30 October 2025 | DPP v Prichard (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 454 (SCC 35 of 2022; SCC 36 of 2022; SCC 125 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – joint commission property damage – joint commission common assault – possession of a prohibited firearm – possession of ammunition – need for general deterrence of vigilantism – no relevant criminal history – positive subjective circumstances – offer to compensate victim – late pleas of guilty – suspended sentence – good behaviour orders – reparation order – fines. The Supreme Court has published the reasons for sentence of an offender charged with joint commission property damage, joint commission common assault, possessing a prohibited firearm and possessing ammunition. The court emphasised the need for general deterrence of vigilantism, noting that the offender had turned up at somebody’s house with two others, armed with tools or weapons. The offender was sentenced to 52 days’ imprisonment, suspended upon entering a good behaviour order, and given fines and a further good behaviour order. |
| Uploaded 30 October 2025 | Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shearman (No 6) [2025] ACTSC 483CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – building dispute – non-appearance of self-represented litigant –contents of medical certificate insufficient – directions made regarding further detail of medical condition from medical practitioner. |
| Uploaded 29 October 2025 | Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 444PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Judicial review proceedings – where plaintiff successful on preliminary parliamentary privilege issue but ultimately unsuccessful – where defendant adopted submissions on parliamentary privilege of Speaker of Legislative Assembly, appearing as amicus – where parties could not waive parliamentary privilege issue – where mere fact that plaintiff is an individual challenging government action insufficient to depart from usual costs order – where proceedings were brought to protect plaintiff’s private interests – costs awarded to defendant, with adjustment for plaintiff’s success on parliamentary privilege issue. The Supreme Court has ordered the plaintiff to pay 85% of Integrity Commission’s costs in these proceedings. The plaintiff was successful on a preliminary issue relating to parliamentary privilege (on which the defendant adopted the submissions of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, appearing as amicus curiae) but she was ultimately unsuccessful. The court noted that the mere fact that the plaintiff is an individual challenging government action insufficient to depart from usual costs order, and that the proceedings were brought to protect plaintiff’s private interests. |
| Uploaded 28 October 2025 | DPP v Hagan (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 468CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCE LIST – cancellation application – whether offender unwilling or unlikely to comply with conditions of treatment order – whether continuation of treatment and supervision component of treatment order unlikely to achieve the objects of the order – treatment order cancelled – offender resentenced. |
| Uploaded 28 October 2025 | DPP v Rose [2025] ACTSC 469 (SCC 67 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – possession of a prohibited firearm – trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis – possession of a knife in public without reasonable excuse – possession of ammunition for a firearm without a licence or permit – dealing with proceeds of crime – where offending related to drug addiction – whether drug and alcohol treatment order should be made. The Supreme Court has convicted a 34-year-old man of various offences relating to drug trafficking and possession of a prohibited firearm and sentenced him to a total effective term of imprisonment of 1 year, 6 months and 28 days. The offender had been found by police sleeping on a road beside a motorcycle and a backpack. When searched, the backpack contained a loaded shotgun and a machete. A search of the offender had located approximately $1,100 in cash and approximately 8.9g of methylamphetamine, along with a small quantity of clear clip-seal bags. The offending was attributable to the offender’s drug addiction. The sentence was backdated to commence on 7 June 2025 and suspended from the date of sentence, with the remainder of the sentence to be served by way of a drug and alcohol treatment order. |
| Uploaded 28 October 2025 | DPP v Ziebell [2025] ACTSC 471 (SCC 142 of 2024; SCC 405 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – forcible confinement – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – reckless threat to inflict grievous bodily harm – intentionally and unlawfully choke, suffocate or strangle – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – minor theft – joint criminal enterprise – high degree of responsibility – guarded prospects of rehabilitation – extensive criminal history – one episode of criminal conduct as part of a joint criminal enterprise – offender convicted and sentenced to six years and six months of imprisonment. |
| Uploaded 28 October 2025 | DPP v Pitt [2024] ACTSC 338CRIMINAL LAW -- EVIDENCE -- Pre-trial application for leave to adduce evidence of prior sexual activities between complainant and accused -- application unopposed -- leave granted. The publication restriction has been lifted. |
| Uploaded 28 October 2025 | DPP v Paterson [2024] ACTSC 313CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application seeking advanced ruling as to admissibility of evidence – whether representations are admissions – adverse to interest – misleading or confusing – unfair prejudice. The publication restriction has been removed. |
| Uploaded 28 October 2025 | DPP v Brown (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 5CRIMINAL LAW --JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE -- Pre-trial application --advanced ruling -- accused’s application to adduce tendency evidence -- relevance of evidence not yet determined -- admissibility of evidence used to assert tendency not yet determined -- additional evidence may be adduced at trial in relation to tendency reasoning -- whether trial judge better suited to decide tendency application -- desirability of advance rulings --not appropriate to make advanced ruling sought. The publication restriction has been removed. |
| Uploaded 28 October 2025 | Prpic v Mrvcic [2025] ACTSC 477CIVIL LAW – SUCCESSION – Application to set aside caveat in relation to grant of representation – whether testator had testamentary capacity at time of making will – longstanding mental illness – no appearance by defendant throughout proceedings – caveat set aside. |
| Uploaded 27 October 2025 | DPP v Beroukas (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 475 (SCC 28 of 2025; SCC 29 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – driving offences – breach of good behaviour order – sentence of imprisonment imposed – whether subjective features make an intensive correction order appropriate – where voluntary treatment under quasi-custodial conditions undertaken – where disproportionate hardship to dependants would result if full-time custodial sentence imposed – intensive correction order made. The Supreme Court has convicted an offender of several driving offences of modest gravity. This resulted in a previous good behaviour order imposed as part of a suspended sentence for an earlier offence involving arson being cancelled. The court resentenced the offender as part of imposing a total effective sentence of imprisonment for a term of 1 year 6 months and 9 days. As the offender had undertaken drug rehabilitation in the meantime and was a primary carer of children less than a year old, the sentence was ordered to be served by way of an intensive correction order. |
| Uploaded 27 October 2025 | DPP v Kelly [2025] ACTSC 465 (SCC 345 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – family violence – aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle – aggravated intentional threat to kill – aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – Bugmy considerations – guarded rehabilitative prospects – risk of institutionalisation – hardship to offender’s family – partially suspended sentence order. |
| Uploaded 24 October 2025 | Nicita v Ernst & Young [2025] ACTSC 478PARTNERSHIP – BREACH OF PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT – Termination for just cause – where plaintiff charged with common assault arising from his conduct towards a bar manager (caught on CCTV) – where plaintiff had already been given “first and final warning” due to comments made at Miami Vice themed Christmas party – where question of “just cause” to be determined under partnership agreement by the sole opinion of managing partner – where, if managing partner finds just cause, termination is at managing partner’s absolute discretion – whether termination decision reasonably open to managing partner and made in good faith – whether termination power enlivened by plaintiff’s private conduct – where decision separately affirmed by internal appeal – termination within power given by partnership agreement – proceedings dismissed. The Supreme Court has dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for damages for breach of a partnership agreement. The plaintiff’s interest in the partnership was terminated for “just cause” after he was charged with the common assault of a bar manager. The plaintiff claimed that the termination power was not enlivened by his private conduct, and that the decision was not reasonably open or made in good faith. The court found that the termination was within the power given to the managing partner in the partnership agreement. |
| Uploaded 23 October 2025 | DPP v Roberts [2024] ACTSC 405 (SCC 76 of 2022; SCC 77 of 2022; SCC 33 of 2024; SCC 34 of 2024; SCC 167 of 2024; SCC 168 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – driving offences – aggravated burglary and robbery – dishonestly obtain property by deception – three series of offending spanning multiple years – application of principle of totality – “overwhelming and untreated” background of trauma – Bugmy, Verdins, Henry principles enlivened – whether drug and alcohol treatment order appropriate and suitable – criminal history disentitles offender to leniency – strong motivation to rehabilitate – previous attempts at rehabilitation unsuccessful – treatment order not capable of meeting complex needs of offender – risk of further institutionalisation – community protection – nonparole period imposed – recommendation made to Sentence Administration Board to support continued rehabilitation. |
| Uploaded 22 October 2025 | Cahill v Nominal Defendant [2025] ACTSC 472CIVIL LAW – APPLICATION – Whether plaintiff is a person with a legal disability – traumatic brain injury – where evidence of impairment does not relate directly to conduct of litigation – Court satisfied plaintiff not a person with a legal disability. |
| Uploaded 22 October 2025 | DPP v Cahill (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 464 (SCC 220 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated common assault – family violence – conduct which went beyond the bounds of lawful parental authority – disadvantaged background – offence committed in extenuating circumstances – s 17 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) considerations – non-conviction order and good behaviour order. |
| Uploaded 22 October 2025 | R v Kader [2022] ACTSC 21CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Leave to issue subpoenas – subpoenas may disclose protected confidences – leave for the disclosure of a protected confidence – legitimate forensic purpose. The publication restriction has been lifted. |
| Uploaded 17 October 2025 | DPP v Byrne [2025] ACTSC 459 (SCC 180 of 2025; SCC 181 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – attempt to traffic in a controlled drug other than cannabis by joint commission – money laundering – use unregistered/suspended vehicle – disadvantaged background – demonstration of remorse – demonstration of good prospects of rehabilitation – offender sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years, 11 months and 9 days – fine imposed – sentence to be served by way of intensive corrections order The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for one count of attempt to traffic in a controlled drug other than cannabis and one count of money laundering. The offender had a disadvantaged background, and had demonstrated remorse as well as good prospects of rehabilitation. The offender was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years, 11 months and 9 days, which was to be served by way of Intensive Corrections Order. A fine of $250 was also imposed for a transfer charge of using an unregistered or suspended vehicle. |
| Uploaded 17 October 2025 | R v M C-N; R v Andy [2021] ACTSC 129CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pre-Trial Application – s 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – invalid search and surveillance warrant – where items seized under invalid warrant – application that evidence be excluded as illegally or unlawfully obtained – where warrant invalid due to omitting offence to which warrant related – where applicants charged with aggravated burglary – where police became aware of warrant invalidity while on property subject of warrant after items had been seized – consideration of “rule of strictness” in relation to discretion under s 138 – whether police conduct deliberate or reckless – consideration of whether conduct of police amounted to deliberate contravention of Australian law or deliberate impropriety – consideration of probative value of evidence The publication restriction has been removed. |
| Uploaded 16 October 2025 | DPP v Whitney [2025] ACTSC 457 (SCC 52 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – robbery – whether a drug and alcohol treatment order should be made The Supreme Court has convicted a 38-year-old offender and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 4 years, with a drug and alcohol treatment order imposed, for robbery and aggravated robbery offences. The conduct involved robbing two petrol stations and a grocery store of small amounts of cash. The offender had a history of social disadvantage and trauma, had previously attempted drug rehabilitation without success, and had spent a significant period of time in pre-sentence custody. |
| Uploaded 16 October 2025 | Heaven Builders Pty Ltd v Moustafa [2025] ACTSC 466APPEAL – CIVIL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – dispute over payment for painting stage and variations to contract – breach of contract – whether Magistrate erred in finding purported termination of contract by Respondents was valid – whether Respondents had cured earlier breach of contract at time of termination – where Respondents had excluded Appellant from accessing building site – whether subsequent invitation to re-commence work provided uninterrupted possession to builders – appeal allowed |
| Uploaded 16 October 2025 | Prichard v Honeywell Limited (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 467CIVIL LAW – NEGLIGENCE – Personal injury – injury suffered during the course of employment as a truck driver – where Plaintiff not a reliable witness – whether the defendants are liable for the injury suffered by the plaintiff – consideration of plaintiff’s pre-existing injuries – consideration of plaintiff’s present medical conditions and physical restrictions – expert evidence |
| Uploaded 15 October 2025 | Williams v Director-General of the Justice and Community Safety Directorate (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 462ORDERS – declaratory relief – whether the Australian Capital Territory is the appropriate party to be bound by declarations PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUBSTITUTION – ORDERS – whether Territory should be substituted COSTS – apportionment – where plaintiff not entirely successful – whether causes of action on which plaintiff failed were dominant or discrete – whether interests of justice warrant apportionment The Supreme Court has granted declaratory relief in respect of conduct that was previously found to be incompatible with human rights. In doing so, the Court substituted the Australian Capital Territory as a defendant in the proceeding because it was necessary for the Territory, as the entity to which civil liability attached, to be bound by the orders. The defendants were then ordered to pay 90% of plaintiff’s costs. |
| Uploaded 15 October 2025 | DPP v O’Brien (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 276CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for a temporary stay of proceedings pending payment of allegedly wasted legal costs – where proceedings adjourned due to late disclosure of material by the prosecution – whether conduct amounted to misuse of the court’s process by those responsible for law enforcement – whether costs wasted |
| Uploaded 15 October 2025 | Langi v R [2023] ACTCA 38APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – whether verdict of guilty was unreasonable – where identification evidence included evidence from police officer that he recognised appellant in low quality audio recording and evidence from victim whose reliability and credibility appellant sought to impugn – consideration of factors affecting reliability of voice identification – whether it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt upon the whole of the evidence APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – adequacy of directions given by trial judge – whether trial judge adequately warned jury about dangers of expectation or confirmation bias affecting identification evidence – where no direction or re-direction sought at trial APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – where in closing addresses prosecutor suggested Crown witness may have been lying and relevant witness had not been challenged on her evidence – whether prosecutor impugned witness’ credit causing miscarriage of justice APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – whether sentencing judge erred in findings of fact – parity Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against both conviction and sentence. |
| Uploaded 15 October 2025 | Saeedi v Pastrello (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 460PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Costs in probate matters – where first plaintiff (executor of new will) ceased to play active role in proceedings – where certain defendants (who propounded the new will) became plaintiffs and stepped into the role that the executor would have otherwise performed – where conduct of remaining defendants challenging the new will had a proper and reasonable basis, but was motivated, at least in part, by their own financial interests – costs orders made in favour of all parties payable out of the estate The Supreme Court has published the reasons for making costs orders in a probate matter. The court made costs orders in favour of all parties payable out of the estate. The court considered that the orders were appropriate noting that certain plaintiffs had stepped into the role that the executor would have otherwise performed and that the conduct of the defendants had a proper and reasonable basis, though in part motivated by financial interests. |
| Uploaded 13 October 2025 | DPP v Heath (a pseudonym) (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 426 (SCC 279 of 2024; SCC 370 of 2024; SCC 371 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated act of indecency in presence of person under 16 years – aggravated common assault – aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle – aggravated act of indecency without consent – family violence – single instance of offending – jury trial – where acts of indecency not motivated by sexual gratification – offending designed to humiliate and assert dominance over victims – no evidence of remorse – no greater leniency afforded because of intoxication – some accumulation to recognise separate victims – sentence of imprisonment imposed – non-parole period The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender, following jury trial, to 2 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months for family violence offending occurring over a single evening. The acts, including common assault, choke/suffocate/strangle, and acts of indecency, were perpetrated by the offender against his stepson and his 14-year-old step-grandson. The offender was heavily intoxicated at the time of the offending. The Court noted that the acts perpetrated against the offender’s step-grandson, although not motivated by sexual gratification, were designed to humiliate and assert dominance over him. He was living with the offender, and the offender was in a significant position of trust. In coming to the sentence, the Court considered the offender’s lack of remorse, and the importance of personal and general deterrence. |
| Uploaded 13 October 2025 | DPP v Offe (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 384CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – SEAT OF GOVERNMENT – Application of Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) to Parliamentary precincts – where Crimes Act is a law of general operation – where no resolution of a House of Parliament disapplying the Crimes Act – where Presiding Officers of Parliament have powers of control and management over the Parliamentary precincts – where no inconsistency arises between that power and the Crimes Act – challenge to indictment rejected CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – SEAT OF GOVERNMENT – Prosecution of offences occurring in Parliamentary precincts in ACT Supreme Court by ACT Director of Public Prosecutions – where functions of ACT Director include conducting prosecutions on indictment whether or not instituted by the ACT Director – where offences occurring in Parliamentary precincts to be conducted in accordance with “general arrangements” between Presiding Officers of Parliament and the Commonwealth Director – present arrangements do not prevent current prosecution – challenge to prosecution rejected The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the indictment and prosecution in this matter. The court, noting that the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) is a law of general operation in the Territory, held that no inconsistency arose between that Act and laws relating to the Parliamentary precincts which give control and management of the Parliamentary precincts to the Presiding Officers of Parliament. The court also held that the ACT Director of Prosecutions was not prevented by the laws relating to the Parliamentary precincts from conducting the prosecution. |
| Uploaded 10 October 2025 | R v Roy (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 449 (SCC 117 of 2022)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offence of possession of child abuse material – offence of using a carriage service for sexual activity with a person under 16 years – offence of producing child exploitation material – offence of accessing child abuse material – where the material is in the upper range of seriousness for offences of this kind – where forensic psychologist had the opinion the offender experienced denial – where proceedings experienced delay – where plea of guilty came after an adverse ruling on pre-trial application. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a total term of 10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years for the possession, production and accessing of child abuse material and the use of a carriage service for sexual activity with persons under 16 years. The offender had pleaded guilty after the Court ruled against his application to exclude the entirety of the prosecution case. The Court accepted that the material possessed was objectively in the upper range of seriousness and that the sentencing principles of punishment and deterrence must be given significant weight. The offender relied on evidence by a psychologist that he was experiencing denialism of the wrongfulness of his conduct. The Court accepted the offender had been lonely and isolated but that the evidence contradicted the proposition that he did not appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. |
| Uploaded 10 October 2025 | Robin (a pseudonym) v DPP [2025] ACTCA 40Judgment summaryAPPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – family violence offences – choke, suffocate, strangle – aggravated common assault occasioning actual bodily harm – breach of family violence order – coercive control – whether sentencing judge failed to comply with s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 – where sentencing judge indicated discount solely by reference to percentage reduction – whether sentence was manifestly excessive – effect of increased maximum sentence for offence of choke render insensible – appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal against sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty to, and was sentenced for, six counts of family violence offences, including aggravated choking, aggravated assault and contravening a FVO. The appellant appealed on two grounds: first, that the sentencing judge had erred in not complying with s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005; and second, that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal found that neither ground of appeal had been established. |
| Uploaded 10 October 2025 | Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v de la Torre [2025] ACTSC 436PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS – Address for service – whether model litigant should have address for service which is reasonably practicable for the opposing party to use – where self-represented litigant attempted service of application to set aside default judgment on Deputy Commissioner of Taxation – where address for service was limited to physical address and facsimile number – where service not accepted at physical address – where service effected by facsimile – facsimile number not a permissible address for service under the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – proceedings adjourned to allow adequate time for notice of hearing to reach address for service – default judgment stayed. The Supreme Court has stayed a default judgment and adjourned proceedings for four weeks following the Deputy Commissioner’s failure to appear at hearings of an application to set aside default judgment. The court found that additional time was needed for notice of the hearing to reach the Deputy Commissioner’s address for service. This is because the address for service was limited to a physical address and a facsimile number, both of which the defendant had attempted to use to serve his application. |
| Uploaded 9 October 2025 | DPP v Offe (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 385POLICE – RIGHTS, POWERS and DUTIES – Where police functions not, per se, qualified by provisions of Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988 (Cth) – where police functions may be qualified by action taken under the Parliamentary Precincts Act – where instrument made under the Parliamentary Precincts Act authorises AFP Superintendent assigned to Parliament House to act on behalf of Presiding Officers in relation to day-to-day operational security of Parliament House – where police officer not acting in accordance with functions if not acting with the authority or approval of AFP Superintendent. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURY DIRECTIONS – Where DPP sought indication of direction to be given to jury as to what is required for police officer to be “exercising a function given to the officer as a police officer” under s 29A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – where issue of interaction between Parliamentary Precincts Act and police functions under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth) – indication of jury direction given. The Supreme Court has published the reasons for a jury direction as to what is required for a police officer to be “exercising a function given to the officer as a police officer” under s 29A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The court found that police functions under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth) were qualified by an instrument made under the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988 (Cth) with respect to the day-to-day operational security of Parliament House. |
| Uploaded 9 October 2025 | Adams v DPP (No 2) [2025] ACTCA 3Judgment summaryAPPEAL – fitness to plead – manslaughter – culpable driving causing death in the alternative to manslaughter – driving a motor vehicle without consent – where accused has major neurocognitive disorder from vehicle collision which lead to charges against her – experts agreed accused unfit to plead under s 311 of the Crimes Act – primary judge determined accused fit to plead – whether fitness to plead is an interlocutory decision – whether primary judge erred by not accepting uncontradicted expert evidence and not taking into account evidence of social workers – whether primary judge afforded procedural fairness in conducting fitness investigation – whether primary judge erred by taking into account availability of witness intermediary – evidence insufficient to rebut presumption of fitness – appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a finding that an applicant is fit to plead. The applicant was charged with manslaughter and driving offences after a vehicle collision, which resulted in the death of the victim, and as a result of which the applicant sustained a major neurocognitive disorder. The Court of Appeal agreed with the primary judge that the evidence, including expert reports concluding the applicant was unfit to plead, was insufficient to rebut the presumption of fitness. The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the primary judge had not afforded the appellant procedural fairness. |
| Uploaded 8 October 2025 | DPP v Offe (No 6) [2025] ACTSC 393CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – STATE AND TERRITORY BOUNDARIES – Surrender by NSW and acceptance by the Commonwealth of the ACT – where jurisdiction of the ACT Government over the ACT challenged – whether territory validly surrendered by NSW – where boundaries of NSW defined in the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) primarily by reference to latitude and longitude – where land comprising the ACT is within the geographical scope defined by that Act – where Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) is subject to the Commonwealth Constitution – acquisition by the Commonwealth of the ACT not constitutionally defective – jurisdictional challenges rejected. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER – Notices under s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – where jurisdiction of the court and surrender by NSW of the ACT challenged – where challenge so clearly lacks merit that no real or substantial question arises – no obligation under s 78B arises. The Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the ACT Government over the ACT which was made in the accused’s jury trial. The court closely examined the history of the boundaries of NSW, the surrender of the ACT and the significance of the Commonwealth Constitution. |
| Uploaded 7 October 2025 | Decision Restricted [2025] ACTSC 451CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Pre-trial applications – leave sought by prosecution and two accused to adduce evidence of sexual activity – s 76 of Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) – evidence substantially relevant to proceedings – leave granted. As the judgment is restricted, it is not publicly available. Any enquires about this decision should be directed to Loukas-Karlsson J’s chambers. Associate.loukas-karlssonJ@courts.act.gov.au |
| Uploaded 2 October 2025 | DPP v Wickes [2025] ACTSC 443 (SCC 276 of 2023; SCC 79 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offences committed while in custody – causing grievous bodily harm – choke – use carriage service to menace. The Supreme Court has convicted and sentenced an offender to a total effective sentence of 1 year, 5 months and 5 days, with a non-parole period of 6 months and 19 days, expiring on 19 November 2025, for offences committed while in custody. The offender caused grievous bodily harm and choked another detainee at the conclusion of a volleyball game. He later used a carriage service to menace an intimate partner. An intensive corrections order was sought. However, the court considered that the gravity of the offending was such that further time in full-time custody was appropriate. |
| Uploaded 2 October 2025 | DPP v Fisher [2025] ACTSC 442 (SCC 103 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery by joint commission – where offending drug-related – drug and alcohol treatment order imposed. The Supreme Court has convicted and sentenced a 36-year-old offender in relation to an aggravated robbery by joint commission that occurred in November 2023. Following a discount for a plea of guilty and taking into account parity considerations in respect of one of the co-offenders, a term of imprisonment of 1 year, 10 months and 28 days was imposed, with a drug and alcohol treatment order made for the remainder of the sentence. |
| Uploaded 1 October 2025 | DPP v Drew [2025] ACTSC 440 (SCC 232 of 2024; SCC 320 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – aggravated burglary – where offensive weapon – whether drug and alcohol treatment order should be made. The Supreme Court has sentenced a youthful offender in respect of offences of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery, imposing a total term of imprisonment of two years three months and six days. As a significant period of pre-sentence custody had already been served, rehabilitation was prioritised with a drug and alcohol treatment order imposed from the date of sentence. |
| Uploaded 1 October 2025 | DPP v Whittaker [2025] ACTSC 441 (SCC 250 of 2024; SCC 251 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – multiple driving offences – possess knife without reasonable excuse – possession of more than a small quantity of drug of dependence – where offending breaches previous suspended sentences – whether suspended sentences should be imposed notwithstanding strong subjective case. The Supreme Court has convicted and sentenced an offender in his thirties to a total effective term of imprisonment of ten months and five days for driving related offences, including driving a motorcycle without consent, driving while disqualified, drug driving, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of a knife without reasonable excuse. The offences were committed in breach of two earlier suspended sentences, each for driving while disqualified. The Court determined that in the circumstances, the suspended sentences must be imposed. However, the sentence was otherwise suspended given the offender’s strong subjective case. |
| Uploaded 1 October 2025 | Dimov v The Owners – Units Plan No 2225 (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 446REAL PROPERTY – FIXTURES – Whether erroneously overpoured concrete wall footings encroaching from neighbouring blocks are fixtures – where, if fixtures, plaintiff not entitled to relief for continuing trespass – where overpours are part of underground foundations of wing walls – degree of annexation informed by fact that encroachments are underground rather than being an overhanging protrusion – where object of annexation was for the concrete to be the footings of wing walls on neighbouring blocks – negligent or mistaken, and non-consensual, annexation does not alter the characterisation – where characterising the overpour as a fixture is more consistent with plaintiff’s proprietary rights – the encroaching footings are fixtures. TORTS – TRESPASS TO LAND – Trespass by objects – where builder of neighbouring properties erroneously overpoured concrete wall footings in 2001 or 2002 – where plaintiff alleges continuing trespass against successors in title to neighbouring blocks – where successors in title only liable for trespass if the trespass is continuing and successors knowingly fail to remove the object – encroaching concrete is a fixture and thus forms part of the plaintiff’s land – no continuing trespass established. The Supreme Court has dismissed the plaintiff claim for continuing trespass to land. The previous owners of neighbouring lands overpoured concrete wall footings resulting in underground encroachments to the plaintiff’s land. The Supreme Court found that the overpoured footings were fixtures, meaning they became part of the plaintiff’s land itself. Consequently, there could be no continuing trespass. |
| Uploaded 30 September 2025 | DPP v Offe (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 383CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER – Notice under s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – where accused seeks adjournment to raise a matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation – where asserted matter is an inconsistency between the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988 (Cth) – inconsistency between Territory and Commonwealth enactments not governed by s 109 of the Constitution – assertion of constitutional matter colourable – application dismissed. The Supreme Court has refused to grant an adjournment to allow the Attorneys General of the States and Territories to consider whether to intervene in the proceeding as the application did not raise a matter of any substance engaging the Constitution. The court noted that inconsistency between ACT and Commonwealth laws is not determined by s 109 of the Constitution. |
| Uploaded 29 September 2025 | O’Connell v DPP (No 3) [2025] ACTCA 36CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – where Court of Appeal set aside verdict of guilty of murder – where Court reserved question of whether “another verdict” should be entered – whether special and exceptional circumstances exist favouring the grant of bail. |
| Uploaded 29 September 2025 | O’Connell v DPP (No 4) [2025] ACTCA 41Judgment summaryAPPEAL – Appeal against conviction following trial by jury – where appellant tried for murder – where statutory alternative offence of manslaughter left to jury – where jury found appellant guilty of murder – where appellate court quashed conviction for murder and entered a verdict of acquittal of that offence – whether indictment fully acquitted – whether open to appellate court to substitute verdict of guilty of manslaughter – consideration by majority as to whether their findings preclude entry of substituted verdict – consideration of the prosecutorial discretion – consideration of the effect of s 297 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The Court of Appeal has, by majority, ordered that a verdict of guilty of manslaughter be entered after an appellant successfully argued that a jury verdict of guilty of murder was unreasonable. The Court considered whether the appellant was protected from further prosecution after the earlier ruling, as well as whether the Court of Appeal had the power to substitute a verdict of guilty of a lesser offence. The majority (Loukas-Karlsson and Taylor JJ) found that the jury’s verdict of guilty of murder necessarily encapsulated a finding that the appellant was guilty of manslaughter. They also held that their earlier ruling on the unreasonableness of the jury verdict did not prevent a finding of guilty of manslaughter in this case. In dissent, McCallum CJ found that this was not a case of the greater offence including the lesser offence and accordingly would have remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for a new trial. |
| Uploaded 26 September 2025 | R v Lawrence (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 379 (SCC 240 of 2021)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach of good behaviour order by further offending involving flagrant dishonesty – offending driven by drug addiction and homelessness – reimposition of good behaviour order not opposed by prosecution – supervision condition would set offender up to fail – appropriate to maintain hope of rehabilitation. The Supreme Court has resentenced this offender to a further good behaviour order. The offender was before the court due to breaches of an existing good behaviour order by further offending involving flagrant dishonesty. The court noted that the offending was driven by drug addiction and homelessness, and the reimposition of a good behaviour order was not opposed by the prosecution. The court observed that, in this case, it was appropriate to maintain hope of rehabilitation. |
| Uploaded 26 September 2025 | DPP v McGary (No 4) [2023] ACTSC 212CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for temporary stay of proceedings – whether stay necessary to provide relief against unfair consequences – where application sought disclosure of material not in the possession of the prosecution or police – where submission on the potential for collusion between complainant and tendency witnesses lacks evidence – existence of other potential proceedings not shown to alter accused’s approach to current allegations – where there is capacity for a witness to give evidence from outside Australia – no tangible risk that the trial would be unfair – application dismissed CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Meaning of “similar act witness” in s 42 of Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) – meaning of “intends to give evidence” of similar acts – applies to witness that prosecution intends to call at hearing – not limited by witness’s state of mind The Supreme Court has dismissed an application for temporary stay of proceedings. The application arose following the prosecution's application to adduce tendency evidence. The court found that the accused's application sought disclosure of material not in the possession of the prosecution or police, and that the submission on the potential for collusion between the complainant and the tendency witnesses lacked evidence. The court further determined that the existence of other potential proceedings was not shown to alter the accused's approach to the current allegations. In these circumstances, the court found there was no tangible risk that the trial would be unfair. |
| Uploaded 25 September 2025 | DPP v McGary (No 3) [2023] ACTSC 203CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Application for complainant to give evidence at a pre-trial hearing – application made by prosecution with consent from the accused – whether complainant is a “vulnerable adult” – where complainant’s PTSD affects their ability to give evidence – complainant permitted to give evidence at a pre-trial hearing. The Supreme Court has allowed a complainant to give evidence at a pre-trial hearing. The application was made by the prosecution with consent from the accused. The court determined that the complainant, who suffers from severe PTSD, is a "vulnerable adult" for the purposes of Div 4.3.4 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT). |
| Uploaded 25 September 2025 | DPP v McGary (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 95CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Application to appoint intermediary for complainant – application made after commencement of trial – whether complainant has a communication difficulty – evidentiary position now substantially different from when earlier application for appointment of intermediary was refused – psychological and physical difficulties associated with revisiting the circumstances of the incident have manifested themselves CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Discharge of jury – application made by prosecution – application initially opposed but later joined by accused – uncertainty as to the capacity of the complainant to complete evidence in the available time – limited time available to complete trial – potential for complainant to give evidence pre-trial as a vulnerable adult The Supreme Court has ordered that a witness intermediary be appointed for the complainant in a criminal trial. The application was made after the commencement of the trial. A previous application for the appointment of an intermediary was refused by the court in February 2023 (see DPP v McGary [2023] ACTSC 14). The court held that the evidentiary position was now substantially different from when the earlier application for appointment of intermediary was refused and that the psychological and physical difficulties associated with revisiting the circumstances of the alleged incident have manifested themselves. The court discharged the jury and vacated the trial due to uncertainties as to the capacity of the complainant to complete her evidence in the available time, the limited time available to complete the trial and the potential for the complainant to give evidence pre-trial as a vulnerable adult. |
| Uploaded 25 September 2025 | DPP v Wilson (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 100CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Pre-Trial Application – Application to Adduce Tendency Evidence – Child Sexual Offences – Where the two complainants are sisters – s 97A of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – Presumption that evidence has significant probative value – Exceptional circumstances – Whether jury would have an emotional or irrational response to the evidence – Whether probative value of the tendency evidence outweighs danger of unfair prejudice. |
| Uploaded 24 September 2025 | DPP v Brymer [2025] ACTSC 430 (SCC 60 of 2025; SCC 61 of 2025; SCC 251 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated dangerous driving and other driving related offences – multiple family violence offences – multiple burglary and theft offences – where many offences were drug-related – where no sentence other than terms of imprisonment appropriate – whether drug and alcohol treatment order should be made. The Supreme Court has convicted an offender of 23 offences and imposed a total effective sentence of imprisonment of 4 years, 11 months and 29 days, along with fines totalling $900 and an automatic licence disqualification for a total of 2 years. The offender had pleaded guilty to aggravated dangerous driving and other driving related offences, multiple family violence offences, and multiple burglary and theft offences. Given that much of the offending was drug-related, the court considered it appropriate to further order that the remainder of the sentence be served by way of a drug and alcohol treatment order. |
| Uploaded 24 September 2025 | DPP v O’Brien (a pseudonym) (No 7) [2025] ACTSC 172 (SCC 95 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – act of indecency – sexual intercourse without consent – young person – multiple victims – lack of remorse – moral culpability of young person committing sexual offence – delay and rehabilitation – can an offender be convicted without further punishment – where not appropriate to impose punishment above conviction – exclusion from child sex offender register. The Supreme Court has sentenced a young person, following jury trial, to two years imprisonment, partially suspended after four months, for one act of indecency without consent, and three counts of sexual intercourse without consent. The Court also convicted the young person of a second act of indecency without consent, but declined to impose any further punishment given the nature of the offence. In coming to the sentence, the Court considered the importance of individualised justice and rehabilitation when sentencing young offenders, but balanced that against the objective seriousness of the offending, particularly given its repeat nature, against three separate victims. The Court was satisfied that, taking into account the principles which apply when sentencing young offenders, a term of imprisonment was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offending. |
| Uploaded 24 September 2025 | DPP v O’Brien (a pseudonym) (No 6) [2025] ACTSC 100.CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Pre-sentence report not prepared in compliance with legislation – parties request for the attendance of appropriate government officers at listing – order based on clear and unmistakable requirement in statute ignored – undertaking made to prepare or arrange for the preparation of a pre-sentence report. A young person was due to be sentenced by the Supreme Court following jury trial, and the Court ordered that a pre-sentence report be prepared by Child and Youth Protection Services (CYP) in advance of the sentence. The report was not prepared by CYP by the due date on the basis that the young person at the time of sentence was over 18 years. Without the pre-sentence report, the sentence hearing could not go ahead, and the listing was vacated. Upon being required to appear before the Court, a representative of CYP gave an undertaking to prepare the pre-sentence report as required. The Court noted the considerable harm that would have been caused by the delay in sentencing to both the young person and the victims of the offending. |
| Uploaded 24 September 2025 | DPP v O’Brien (a pseudonym) (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 13CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Pre-sentence report not prepared in compliance with legislation – application for an adjournment of sentence proceedings until after appeal is heard – sentence to follow a verdict. |
| Uploaded 23 September 2025 | DPP v Offe (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 374PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CRIMINAL LAW – Adequacy of prosecution disclosure – application for adjournment of trial – insufficient evidence to indicate failure of disclosure or that any failure of disclosure would indicate that the trial would be unfair in any material way – application dismissed. The Supreme Court dismissed an oral application for the adjournment of a trial that was due to commence the following week. The application alleged a failure of disclosure by the prosecution in response to requests for documents. The court found that the evidence was not sufficient to indicate a failure of disclosure by the prosecution or that any failure of disclosure would indicate that the trial would be unfair in any material way. |
| Uploaded 23 September 2025 | DPP v Offe [2025] ACTSC 371PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CRIMINAL LAW – Particularisation of charges – application to stay or dismiss indictment for want of particulars – court order to provide particulars has been complied with, and did not require amendment of indictment – additional particulars provided in response to request are adequate to allow the accused to know the case to be met – other grounds insufficient to warrant a stay or adjournment of the trial. The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by the accused to stay or dismiss the indictment, or adjourn the upcoming trial, due to want of particulars. The court found that a stay or adjournment of the proceedings was not warranted, noting that there was no basis to direct the filing of a fresh indictment or further particulars, and that the particulars provided by the prosecution were adequate for the accused to know the case to be met. |
| Uploaded 23 September 2025 | DPP v Brown [2025] ACTSC 428 (SCC 440 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle another person – aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – family violence – whether there are prospects of rehabilitation – consideration of general and specific deterrence. |
| Uploaded 23 September 2025 | Tomlinson (a pseudonym) v Roberts (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 429APPEAL – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Leave to appeal – family violence order – application for leave to appeal out of time – application opposed – explanation for delay – solicitor’s error in calculating last day to file the notice of appeal – whether the applicant has any arguable grounds of appeal – whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension of time. The application for leave to appeal out of time is refused. |
| Uploaded 23 September 2025 | Ferguson v ACT Integrity Commission (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 380PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INJUNCTIONS – Where plaintiff sought interlocutory injunction to prevent Integrity Commission accessing data from mobile phone – where grounds of application raise serious questions to be tried, but factual and legal merits of grounds favour Commission – where balance of convenience does not favour grant of injunction – where privacy over documents not the subject of a bona fide privilege claim only lost to Commission – where public interest in Commission being able to complete and report on investigation – application dismissed ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – INTEGRITY COMMISSION – Examination power – whether Commission failed to consider relevant considerations in issuing examination summons – whether Commission asked itself wrong question in requiring immediate production – whether Commission acted outside authority – whether right to privacy contravened – whether seizure of mobile phone constituted trespass to property – serious questions to be tried, including regarding relationship between s 147 and ss 117, 119 and 121 of the Integrity Commission Act 2018 (ACT) and s 12 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) – claims not obviously strong INTEGRITY COMMISSION – EXAMINATION POWER – Claim of client legal privilege over entire mobile phone handset, including documents where privilege is that of the Territory and not the plaintiff – whether claim is sufficiently specific to be a claim within s 161 of the Integrity Commission Act 2018 (ACT) – where open to and reasonably practicable for plaintiff to make a more specific claim that does meet requirements of s 161 – serious question to be tried The Supreme Court has dismissed an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the ACT Integrity Commission from accessing data on a mobile phone. The court found that the grounds of the application raised serious questions to be tried, but the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of an injunction. The court had regard to the public interest in the Commission completing and reporting on its investigation and the fact that the plaintiff’s privacy would only be lost to the Commission. |
| Uploaded 23 September 2025 | DPP v Whitfield [2025] ACTSC 425Trial by judge alone – aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary at the Old Canberra Inn – knife used – CCTV footage – visual and voice identification – identity of offender sole issue for determination . |
| Uploaded 23 September 2025 | DPP v Kinder [2025] ACTSC 431 (SCC 11 of 2025; SCC 12 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – minor theft – unlawful possession of stolen property – whether drug and alcohol treatment order should be made. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a term of imprisonment of almost two years for four offences including aggravated burglary, minor theft and unlawful possession of stolen property. The conduct arose out of a drug-related debt. The offender had already served almost 12 months in pre-sentence custody. A drug and alcohol treatment order was imposed for the remainder of the sentence. |
| Uploaded 23 September 2025 | Loh v Steele [2025] ACTSC 432APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – parking in bicycle lane – assault of parking inspector after being issued parking infringement notice – causing property damage to unrelated parked car – whether jurisdictional error in magistrate’s decision – where Magistrates Court’s jurisdiction to hear criminal charges not affected by possibility of a civil claim, repairs to the damaged car or involvement of insurer – where appellant’s submissions regarding legality of parking in bicycle lane were based on Wikipedia entry and did not engage with ACT legislation – no jurisdictional error identified – no error disclosed in magistrate’s findings – appeal dismissed APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – admission of fresh evidence – evidence includes hearsay repetition of evidence before Magistrates Court and photographs of car demonstrating repair – absence of coherent grounds of appeal – evidence not admissible The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal from the Magistrates Court. In the Magistrates Court, the appellant was found guilty, convicted and sentenced for parking in a bicycle lane, common assault of a parking inspector, and causing property damage to an unrelated parked car. The appellant claimed that the magistrate’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error because the damaged car had been repaired, there was potential for a civil claim, and insurance concerns had not been considered. The Supreme Court identified no jurisdictional error or errors in the magistrate’s findings. |
| Uploaded 22 September 2025 | DPP v Curtis-Hodge [2025] ACTSC 415 (SCC 227 of 2024; SCC 228 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm – breach of suspended sentence – Bugmy considerations – custodial sentence imposed. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one count of intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm. The present offending constituted a breach of a suspended sentence imposed for prior offending. Consequently, a good behaviour order was cancelled, and a term of imprisonment was imposed for the prior offending. The offender received a head sentence of 2 years, 5 months and 24 days, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months. |
| Uploaded 22 September 2025 | DPP v Phan [2025] ACTSC 423 (SCC 188 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – act of indecency on a person under 16 – grooming – use carriage service to possess child abuse material – persistent sexual abuse of a young person under special care – act of indecency – offender sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment – non-parole period of three years and six months imposed – recognizance order not made. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for one count of act of indecency on a person under 16 years (a course of conduct charge), one count of grooming, one count of use carriage service to possess child abuse material, and one count of persistent sexual abuse of a young person under special care. An additional offence of act of indecency was also taken into account pursuant to Part 4.4 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005. The offender received a head sentence of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months. |
| Uploaded 22 September 2025 | DPP v Jewell [2025] ACTSC 367 (SCC 76 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle – aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – aggravated reckless threat to kill – contravene family violence order – traffic in a trafficable quantity of cannabis – family violence directed to pregnant partner and child in their home – pleas of guilty – some hope of rehabilitation – considerations in Bugmy – need for general deterrence of men choking or strangling women – sentences of full-time imprisonment imposed. The Supreme Court has published the reasons for sentence of an offender charged with family violence offending and trafficking in cannabis. The family violence offending included an offence against his child and multiple offences against his pregnant partner, occurring in their home. The court took into account the hope of rehabilitation, Bugmy considerations, and the need for general deterrence of men choking or strangling women. The offender was sentenced to five years, two months and 15 days’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years. |
| Uploaded 22 September 2025 | DPP v Hyde (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 362 (SCC 261 of 2023; SCC 262 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual offences committed by young person [redacted] – plea of guilty – offending in the mid range to the upper end of objective seriousness – offender has had mental health and substance abuse problems from young age – catastrophic and pervasive victim impact – culpability of offender high – offences close in time – requirement that imprisonment be the last resort significant – offender sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, suspended after 16 months”. CRIMINAL LAW – YOUNG OFFENDERS – Sentencing of young offender decades after offending occurred – offender to be sentenced on the basis that offending occurred when he was a young person – purpose of rehabilitation prioritised, other factors must be considered, and imprisonment must be the last resort – however, subsequent conduct relevant to assessment of rehabilitation prospects – full extent of victim impact can be considered. DPP v Hyde (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 362 – The Supreme Court has sentenced this offender to imprisonment for sexual offences, to which the offender pleaded guilty, committed against a young person when he himself was a young person. The court found the offending to be in the mid range to the upper end of objective seriousness, with catastrophic and pervasive victim impact. The court was required to sentence offender as a young offender, notwithstanding the time since the offending occurred. |
| Uploaded 18 September 2025 | The Owners – Unit Plan No 4421 v Geocon Constructors (ACT) Pty Ltd [2024] ACTSC 422CIVIL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to amend claim – application of plaintiff to join a further defendant –- fourteenth defendant – rr 220, 242 and 502 of the Court Procedures Rules – uncertainty of parties as to applicable rule for application – limitation period issue – inappropriate stage of proceedings to resolve limitation period issue. The Supreme Court has published its reasons for allowing an interlocutory application to join a further defendant to a civil proceeding. |
| Uploaded 18 September 2025 | In the Estate of Giuseppe Pellegrino (deceased) [2025] ACTSC 421SUCCESSION – WILLS, PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION – Application for judicial advice – deceased left will leaving estate to his two children – where son of the deceased refused communication from executor – whether son’s conduct amounts to a disclaimer – legal consequences of a disclaimer – proper interpretation of the will – judicial advice given. The Supreme Court has acceded to an application for judicial advice. The applicant was the executor of her father’s will, who left his estate to his two children. The applicant’s brother had refused to communicate with the applicant, including about the will. The applicant sought judicial advice as to whether her brother’s conduct amounts to a disclaimer, and if so, the consequences of that disclaimer. |
| Uploaded 18 September 2025 | Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 424CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE – Whether special report by ACT Integrity Commission (Report) is protected by parliamentary privilege – where Commissioner is an independent officer of the ACT Legislative Assembly – where Report prepared “for” the Legislative Assembly – where Report not produced at Legislative Assembly’s direction – where Report published under Commission’s statutory obligation to do so – where the Commission’s legislation otherwise deals with parliamentary privilege – Commissioner is an outsider to the Legislative Assembly – Report not protected by parliamentary privilege CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE – Purpose of parliamentary privilege – where statutory functions performed by statutory entity independent of the Legislative Assembly – where no legislative command extending parliamentary privilege – artificial to extend parliamentary privilege to the performance of such statutory functions – admitting Report in judicial review proceedings does not detract from the Legislative Assembly’s freedoms of speech and action STATUTES – INTERPRETATION – Integrity Commission Act 2018 (ACT), ss 9 and 10 – where “serious corrupt conduct” is “corrupt conduct that is likely to threaten public confidence in the integrity of government or public administration” – whether “serious” imports a requirement of seriousness beyond “likely to threaten public confidence in the integrity of government or public administration” – it does not STATUTES – INTERPRETATION – Integrity Commission Act 2018 (ACT), s 10 – whether “likely” imports the Briginshaw standard of “more likely than not” – where “likely” is combined with the imprecise concept of “threaten” – usage of “likely” as meaning “a real and not remote chance or possibility” well established – improbable that the legislature combined a precise standard of “more likely than not” with the imprecise concept of “threaten” ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – STATUTORY DUTIES AND POWERS – Functions – whether functions of CEOs, board chairs and board members of public entities are duties which must be performed – where, in generally-applicable statutes, drafters are careful to use the interpretive rulebook that is the Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) – where “function” includes “authority, duty and power” – no contrary intention to displace the operation of the Legislation Act The Supreme Court has dismissed the judicial review challenge by Ms Cover (the former CEO of CIT) in relation to a special report (Report) by the ACT Integrity Commission. The court held that the Report was not affected by the errors of law asserted by the plaintiff, including in relation to the meaning of the words “serious corrupt conduct”. The Supreme Court also rejected the submission by the Commission and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly that the Report was protected by parliamentary privilege. In so doing, the court noted that the Commissioner is an independent outsider to the Legislative Assembly. The rejection of the parliamentary privilege claim enabled the court to examine the Report for material errors of law (which ultimately were not established). |
| Uploaded 17 September 2025 | Certane CT Pty Ltd v Wang [2025] ACTSC 420PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FREEZING ORDERS – Ex-parte application – alleged indicative steps of assets being dissipated – whether there is a danger that any prospective judgment debt will not be satisfied – whether the evidence establishes a good arguable case – whether balance of convenience favours making the orders – relief sought granted. |
| Uploaded 17 September 2025 | R v Wake [2025] ACTSC 416 (SCC 65 of 2024; SCC 243 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – failure to report as required as a registerable offender – use carriage service to possess child abuse material – use carriage service to access child abuse material – use carriage service to transmit child abuse material – use carriage service to solicit child abuse material – use carriage service to make available child abuse material – Verdins principles – Bugmy principles – limited prospects of rehabilitation – application of s 16AAAB and 16AAC (2) and (3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). |
| Uploaded 16 September 2025 | DPP v Offe (No 7) [2025] ACTSC 413 (SCC 191 of 2022; SCC 192 of 2022)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – driving at or near police (two counts) – where offending arose out of a series of unfortunate events – where offender driving at walking pace at public protest – where offender had no intention to cause any physical harm to police – where offending contributed to by misapprehension of police intentions and offender’s susceptibility to influence by others – low seriousness – s 10 threshold not passed – impact of criminal process on offender and time spent in custody significant – however, non conviction not appropriate – fine with time to pay imposed. CRIMINAL LAW – PROTESTS – Police – where offending occurred at a large political protest outside Parliament House – where, unlike in other cases, offending was not intended as part of the protest – where protesting is an important aspect of representative democracy. The Supreme Court has sentenced the offender by way of a fine for two counts of driving at or near police. The offending arose out of a series of unfortunate events. The offender was driving at walking pace at a public protest, with no intention of causing physical harm to police. The court characterised the offending at the low end of objective seriousness, finding the offending was contributed to by offender’s misapprehension of police intentions and his susceptibility to influence by others. The court noted the impact of criminal process on offender and his time spent in custody were significant. The court also made observations in relation to the importance of protests in a representative democracy. |
| Uploaded 15 September 2025 | DPP v Adams [2024] ACTSC 181CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FITNESS TO PLEAD – where accused has major neurocognitive disorder – whether fit to plead – whether appropriate to have regard to availability of an intermediary. The Supreme Court has found an accused is not unfit to plead for offences including manslaughter, culpable driving causing death and driving a stolen motor vehicle. The accused had collided with the deceased in a car crash and consequently suffered a traumatic brain injury, raising a question of her fitness to plead. The Court found the evidence did not displace the presumption that the accused is fit to plead. It was not established that the accused could not understand the nature of the charges nor that she could not follow the proceedings. Further, the Court considered that it could consider the question of fitness to plead having regard to the availability of the assistance of an intermediary. The publication restriction has been removed. |
| Uploaded 12 September 2025 | Atkins (a pseudonym) v Shuttleworth [2025] ACTSC 414APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – appeal against conviction – stalking – s 35 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – meaning of on more than one occasion – reckless intent – unreasonable verdict – fresh evidence – diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. |
| Uploaded 11 September 2025 | DPP (Cth) v Mitchell [2025] ACTSC 412SUPERANNUATION – CONFISCATION AND CESSATION OF BENEFITS – “Corruption offence” and “abuse of office” – where defendant convicted of child sex offences – where relevant offence occurred while offender, employed by AFP, was victim’s gymnastics coach – whether offending constitutes a “corruption offence” – “corruption offence” includes abuse of office – offending occurred by reason of defendant’s employment by the AFP – offending therefore involved an abuse of office – court must make superannuation order under Pt VA of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth) The Supreme Court has made orders requiring the repayment to the Commonwealth of superannuation entitlements accrued by the defendant. The defendant had been convicted of child sex offences, one offence relevantly occurring while the offender, employed by AFP, was the victim’s gymnastic coach. The court held that, as “corruption offence” includes abuse of office, and the offending occurred by reason of defendant’s employment by the AFP, the offending therefore involved an abuse of office. As such, the court was required to make a superannuation order under the relevant legislation. |
| Uploaded 9 September 2025 | DPP v Donnelly [2025] ACTSC 411 (SCC 22 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated common assault – family violence offending – Bugmy considerations – Henry considerations – offending on conditional liberty – good behaviour order imposed |
| Uploaded 9 September 2025 | DPP v Paterson (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 366 (SCC 171 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary and theft in apartment building – property of substantial value – offender has history of drug use and appalling history of driving offences, demonstrating disregard for the law – offender old enough to know better – considerable progress toward rehabilitation – significant custodial penalties nevertheless warranted CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – present offending put offender in breach of good behaviour orders – breaches not dealt with in Magistrates Court due to prosecution oversight – offender has failed to take the opportunity for rehabilitation offered – good behaviour order cancelled CRIMINAL LAW – THEFT AND BURGLARY – Where s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) is unlimited as to the value of goods stolen – where this tends to put downward pressure on the assessment of the seriousness of the offending – necessary to consider the value and nature of the stolen property – increased amount of large apartment blocks increases the prominence of general and specific deterrence of theft and burglary targeting such buildings The Supreme Court has sentenced this offender to three years, five months and 20 days’ imprisonment, with a 21 month non‑parole period, for aggravated burglary and two counts of theft. The court observed that the property stolen was of substantial monetary and sentimental value, the offender has appalling history of driving offences, and though offender had demonstrated considerable progress toward rehabilitation, significant custodial penalties were nevertheless warranted. The court also made observations about the increasing prevalence of large apartment blocks and the need to deter theft and burglary targeting such buildings. |
| Uploaded 9 September 2025 | DPP v Nguyen [2025] ACTSC 364 (SCC 81 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – cultivating commercial quantity of controlled plant for selling – low number of plants but sophisticated operation, including bypass of power meter – mid range offending – positive subjective factors and remorse – plea of guilty – impact of sentence on family – general deterrence of significance – 25 months’ imprisonment with a 13 month non parole period imposed CRIMINAL LAW – PLEA OF GUILTY – Discount for plea – whether prosecution case “overwhelmingly strong” – where plea of guilty entered in Magistrates Court before brief of evidence provided – significant that accused has no access to brief of evidence – where search warrant facially defective – submissions made about other limitations in the evidence – prosecution case not held to be overwhelmingly strong CRIMINAL LAW – SERIOUS DRUG OFFENCES – Cultivating controlled plants – where pattern of sentencing is at the bottom end of the range – maximum penalty provides a yardstick – pattern of sentencing likely explicable by use of “cleanskins” (persons with little to no criminal history) to engage in offending The Supreme Court has sentenced this offender to 25 months’ imprisonment for cultivating a commercial quantity of controlled plant for selling. In setting the non parole period at the bottom end of the usual range, the court noted the offender’s positive subjective factors and remorse, and the impact of a custodial sentence on the offender’s family . However, the court considered that a term of full time imprisonment was required to meet the purposes of sentencing. The Supreme Court also observed that the current sentencing pattern in relation to cultivating controlled plants is at the bottom end of the range set by the maximum penalty. The Supreme Court noted this was likely explicable by the use of “cleanskins” (persons with little to no criminal history) to engage in such offending. |
| Uploaded 9 September 2025 | DPP v Majok (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 360 (SCC 254 of 2023; SCC 216 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – second breach of good behaviour order – where breach involved failure to accept supervision – where offender admits that unlikely to comply with supervision obligations in the future – necessary for offender to return to full time custody to protect the integrity of the suspended sentence – term of imprisonment with a short non parole period imposed. The Supreme Court has resentenced this offender, who had breached his good behaviour order, to a term of imprisonment with a short non-parole period. The offender admitted to having breached the supervision requirement of his good behaviour order and admitted that he was unlikely to comply with such a requirement in the future. The court considered that a return to full‑time custody was necessary to protect the integrity of the suspended sentence as a sentencing option. |
| Uploaded 9 September 2025 | Mortgage Investment Group (ACT) Pty Ltd v SAP Canberra Pty Ltd [2025] ACTSC 356LAND TITLES – CAVEATS – Whether caveat sufficiently describes nature of interest in land – caveat only contains reference to the source of the interest – caveat defective LAND TITLES – CAVEATS – Successive caveats – whether a letter signed by directors of two entities, one entity being the new registered proprietor, constitutes agreement binding upon that entity or its sole director giving rise to the interest described in the letter – serious question to be tried – where caveat asserted to be an impediment to refinancing – evidence does not establish preclusion of refinancing – balance of convenience favours registration of successive caveat The Supreme Court has ordered the removal of a defective caveat over certain land, but also ordered the registration of a successive caveat in terms which properly describe the interest in the land. In doing so, the court had found that there was a serious question to be tried in the case and the balance of convenience favoured the registration of a successive caveat. |
| Uploaded 9 September 2025 | DPP v Adams (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 370CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FITNESS TO PLEAD – where accused has major neurocognitive disorder – whether fit to plead – where previous investigation found the accused was not unfit to plead at that time. The Supreme Court has found a woman accused of manslaughter remained fit to plead. The accused previously made a fitness application on the basis that she had a traumatic brain injury rendering her significantly cognitively impaired. The Court found the accused fit to plead, a finding upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Court accepted evidence that the accused’s traumatic brain injury caused difficulties in providing instructions, but was not satisfied that the accused was unable to provide instructions. The publication restriction has been removed. |
| Uploaded 8 September 2025 | DPP v McGary (No 10) [2024] ACTSC 355CRIMINAL LAW – JURIES – sexual assault trial – where evidence included graphic messages concerning sexual fantasies involving BDSM themes – where jury sought permission at point of commencement of their deliberations to access counselling available to jurors in the ACT. The publication restriction has been removed. |
| Uploaded 8 September 2025 | DPP v McGary (No 7) [2024] ACTSC 207CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Ground rules hearing – where complainant raised issues with the Court while under cross-examination – whether a new intermediary should be appointed – where complainant sought to give evidence by audiovisual link from a place other than the court remote witness room – where complainant’s treating practitioner suggests longer breaks during cross-examination – where complainant alleged counsel for the accused had a conflict of interest. The publication restriction has been removed. |
| Uploaded 8 September 2025 | DPP v O’Brien (a pseudonym) [2024] ACTSC 63CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Tendency evidence – prosecution application to adduce tendency evidence – where charges involve multiple complainants – where prosecution seeks to rely upon evidence of each complainant in relation to each other complainant and evidence of each complainant as between their own counts – whether probative value outweighs danger of unfair prejudice – held that it does – application allowed CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Matters connected with conduct of defence – defence application to sever charges – whether changes to consent law will cause confusion for jury and lead to unfair trial – whether direction to jury able to overcome any confusion – held that direction to jury adequate to avoid unfair trial – application dismissed The Supreme Court allowed an application by the DPP to adduce tendency evidence and dismissed an application by the accused to sever charges from the indictment. The case against the accused included allegations of sexual offences against multiple complainants, and the prosecution sought to rely upon the evidence of each complainant as tendency evidence in respect of the counts relating to each other complainant and as between their own counts. In relation to severance, the court did not accept that a change in consent laws would cause confusion for the jury and lead to an unfair trial. The publication restriction has been removed. |
| Uploaded 8 September 2025 | DPP v Rossiter (No 6) [2025] ACTSC 397 (SCC 124 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Indicative sentence – historical child sexual offences – special hearing conducted by judge alone due to unfitness to plead – offences of indecent assault, carnal knowledge and persistent sexual abuse of biological daughter – where accused was found to have engaged in the conduct required for each of the five offences – consideration of appropriate nominated term of imprisonment – objective seriousness of the offences – impact of offending on the victim – accused’s personal circumstances. The Supreme Court found that a 97-year-old man engaged in the conduct required for each of the five historical sexual offences he was charged with in a special hearing. Consequently, the Court was required to indicate the sentence considered appropriate had he been found guilty of each of the five charges. In deciding the nominated terms, the Court considered the objective seriousness of the offences, the accused’s personal circumstances, the delay in the matter coming to a hearing and the impact the offending had on the victim who was his own biological daughter. |
| Uploaded 5 September 2025 | PH1 v Australian Capital Territory [2025] ACTSC 400CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – application for leave to disclose produced protected confidence evidence – mandatory considerations in granting leave – evidence inspected by Court – plaintiff consents to disclosure – leave granted. |
| Uploaded 5 September 2025 | Camilleri v Boral Resources (Country) Pty Limited [2025] ACTSC 401PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PRELIMINARY DISCOVERY – application for discovery of documents from prospective defendant – whether sufficient basis to show potential cause of action exists – whether reasonable inquiries made – application for preliminary discovery dismissed. |
| Uploaded 5 September 2025 | In the Estate of Misaljevic [2025] ACTSC 402SUCCESSION – WILLS, PROBATE & ADMINISTRATION – Application for letters of administration – deceased died intestate – meaning of domestic partner – s 169 of Legislation Act – ex parte application – filing of notice of intention to respond demonstrative of service – were applicant and deceased living together on genuine domestic basis – domestic partnership established – letters of administration granted to applicant. |
| Uploaded 5 September 2025 | Cotton v Spiro [2025] ACTSC 398CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INTERROGATORIES – medical negligence claim – application for leave to administer interrogatories – objections to application – operation of amended rr 630, 631 and 632 of the CPR – mandatory considerations – expert medical evidence – application partially successful |
| Uploaded 5 September 2025 | Higgins v Pretorius (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 399JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – STAY ORDERS – Application to set aside stay of judgment – stay instituted pending defendant’s appeal and for defendant to obtain financial advice – where defendant in loan agreement with husband at time stay instituted – defendant continued to draw down loan after stay imposed – court unaware of loan at time of stay – defendant has not obtained financial advice – defendant applied for bankruptcy – circumstances under which stay imposed substantially changed – stay order removed. JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FREEZING ORDERS – Application to restrain defendant’s husband from taking certain actions – freezing order unnecessary where stay removed – no freezing order made |
| Uploaded 5 September 2025 | Ferguson v ACT Integrity Commission [2025] ACTSC 375PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INJUNCTIONS – Human rights – Where plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction – where plaintiff advanced claims arising under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) but had not notified the Human Rights Commission and Attorney-General under s 34(2) of that Act until the day of the interlocutory hearing – where the circumstances did not involve the grant of urgent relief of an interlocutory nature – where a reasonable period of time had not passed for the Human Rights Commission and Attorney-General to decide whether to intervene – proceeding adjourned. The Supreme Court has adjourned an application for an interlocutory injunction in circumstances where the plaintiff had advanced claims arising under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) but had not notified the Human Rights Commission and Attorney-General under s 34(2) of that Act until the day of the interlocutory hearing. The Court found that the circumstances did not involve a grant of urgent relief of an interlocutory nature, and that a reasonable time had not passed for the Human Rights Commission and the Attorney‑General to decide whether to intervene. The Court therefore adjourned the proceeding until the following day. |
| Uploaded 5 September 2025 | DPP v Bui [2025] ACTSC 359 (SCC 69 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – cultivating commercial quantity of controlled plant with belief that someone else intended to sell plants or products – co-offenders both at low level of criminal organisation involved in sophisticated cannabis grow houses – pleas of guilty – significance of general deterrence – sentenced to periods of full-time imprisonment . The Supreme Court has published the reasons for sentence of two co-offenders charged with cultivating a commercial quantity of a controlled plant, namely cannabis, with the belief that someone else intended to sell the plants or products. Mr Bui was sentenced to 11 months and seven days’ imprisonment, and Mr Tran was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The Court took into account that both co-offenders had entered pleas of guilty and were at a low level of the criminal organisation involved in the sophisticated cannabis grow houses. However, the Court noted the significant need for general deterrence. |
| Uploaded 5 September 2025 | DPP v McGary (No 5) [2023] ACTSC 242EVIDENCE – TENDENCY – Application to adduce evidence in support of asserted tendency – accused charged with sexual intercourse without consent – issue at trial whether complainant consented – accused asserted to have a tendency to ignore consent or protestation and to physically restrict his intimate partners – whether the evidence has significant probative value – whether the probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice – danger of procedural unfair prejudice arising from evidence taken from a place outside of Australia – accused unable to test that evidence – ruling as to admissibility. The Supreme Court has allowed an application to adduce tendency evidence with respect to one incident, but not four other incidents. The accused was charged with sexual intercourse without consent, and it was asserted that he had a tendency to ignore consent or protestation and physically restrict his intimate partners. The court found that, for two of the incidents, the danger of unfair prejudice arising from the evidence being taken outside Australia outweighed the probative value of the evidence. The publication restriction has been removed. |
| Uploaded 5 September 2025 | DPP v Laic [2025] ACTSC 365 (SCC 173 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – common assault, choke and threat to inflict grievous bodily harm – aggravated offences – family violence – absence of victim impact statement – pleas of guilty – reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, limited criminal history and protective factors – prevalence and gravity of choking and strangling as a form of domestic violence – custodial sentence of 22 months and 15 days imposed, to be served by intensive correction CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – intensive correction orders – where offender assessed as not suitable for intensive correction order – where parties submit intensive correction order still available – where limited foundation for conclusion of unsuitability in assessment report – intensive correction order imposed in combination with fines and a requirement to perform community service to give effect to the purpose of general deterrence The Supreme Court has published the reasons for sentence of an offender charged with family violence offences, including aggravated common assault, aggravated choke, and aggravated threat to inflict grievous bodily harm. The offender was sentenced to 22 months and 15 days’ imprisonment to be served by intensive correction in the community, in combination with fines totalling $10,000 and 100 hours of community service. The Court noted the prevalence and gravity of choking or strangulation as a form of domestic violence, and the need for deterrence and denunciation of such conduct. The Court also took into account the offender’s pleas of guilty, reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, limited criminal history and protective factors. |
| Uploaded 5 September 2025 | DPP v Da Silva-Wilson [2025] ACTSC 361 (SCC 102 of 2025; SCC 103 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – possession of prohibited weapons, prohibited firearms and other firearms – where items included a flick knife, a dagger, knuckle-dusters, an extendable baton, nunchaku, slingshots, a gel blaster and airguns – all offences at the low end of objective seriousness – pleas of guilty – reason for accumulation of weapons and firearms unclear – risk that certain firearms could be mistaken for real weapons and come into the hands of someone who intended to use them as such – sentences of imprisonment suspended subject to a good behaviour order. The Supreme Court has published the reasons for sentence of an offender charged with unauthorised possession of prohibited and other firearms and prohibited weapons (including knuckle-dusters, slingshots and nunchaku), as well as possession of stolen property. The offender was sentenced to periods of imprisonment, with those for the firearms offences suspended upon entry into a good behaviour undertaking. The court took into account the risk that certain airguns could be mistaken for real weapons and noted the need for general deterrence in relation to stolen bicycles and e-bikes. |
| Uploaded 4 September 2025 | Williams v Director-General of the Justice and Community Safety Directorate [2025] ACTSC 396HUMAN RIGHTS – PRISON AUTHORITIES – detainee on remand – refusal of request for funeral leave – whether conduct incompatible with human rights – right to enjoy culture and maintain cultural and kinship ties – right to privacy HUMAN RIGHTS – PRISON AUTHORITIES – detainee on remand – planned use of force – strip or body search – whether conduct incompatible with human rights – right to humane treatment while deprived of liberty – right to protection from degrading treatment – right to privacy – right to appropriate treatment for person on remand EVIDENCE – PRIVILEGES – PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE principles applying in the Territory – functional connection required – objective test – where statute required report to be laid before Legislative Assembly – where statutory purpose for scrutiny by Legislative Assembly – functional connection established – privilege attached EVIDENCE – PRIVILEGES – Human Rights Commission Act 2005 (ACT), ss 73 and 75 – whether privilege against exposure to civil penalty applied – whether letter notifying complaint constituted an exercise of statutory coercive power to request information – where letter in response provided information voluntarily – no privilege attached STAUTORY CONSTRUCTION – Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 40B(1)(b) – proper consideration – whether higher test imposed than that at common law – ordinary common law principles apply STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – Human Rights Commission Act 2005, ss 45(2), 72 and 73 – scope of power to request documents – whether statutory power to obtain information limited to a coercive power contained in s 73 of the Act WORDS & PHRASES – Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 40B(1)(b) – “proper consideration” – manner in which “proper” qualifies consideration PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – HUMAN RIGHTS PROCEEDINGS – operation of Court Procedures Rules 2006, rr 33 and 34 – where proceeding commenced by application – appropriateness of pleadings in circumstances where complex factual and legal issues involved – whether Territory appropriate defendant The Supreme Court has held that a detainee on remand at the Alexander Maconochie Centre in 2021 was entitled to declaratory relief in respect of conduct found to be incompatible with a number of her rights under the Human Rights Act. The detainee had sought leave from the AMC to attend her grandmother’s sorry business. When her application was refused, her mental health deteriorated and ultimately, she was subjected to a use of force and a strip search as a means of protecting her from self-harm. The conduct was found to be inconsistent with a number of AMC policies and to have impacted upon a number of the plaintiff’s human rights, including her right to humane and appropriate treatment while deprived of liberty on remand, her right to privacy, and her right to protection from degrading treatment. |
| Uploaded 4 September 2025 | R v Homem [2025] ACTSC 343 (SCC 154 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offence of possessing child exploitation material – offence of using a carriage service to possess child exploitation material – importance of specific and general deterrence – where offender submitted that the offence was at the lower end of the range based on number of files – where offender submitted material was downloaded “accidentally” – where offender submitted he was “too lazy” to delete material – where offender provided “apology” addressed to the Court rather than the child victims – whether caring for elderly mother was exceptional circumstance justifying sentence other than fulltime custody. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a total term of 35 months’ imprisonment for the possession of child abuse material. The Court noted the importance of specific and general deterrence for this type of offending. The Court rejected the offender’s submission that the files were “accidentally” downloaded and that he was simply “too lazy” to delete them. The offender “apologised” to the Court, rather than the child victims contained in the material. The offender’s submission that he had special and exceptional circumstances in having to care for his elderly mother was rejected. |
| Uploaded 3 September 2025 | DPP v McGary (No 11) [2025] ACTSC 246CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay of proceedings – application for permanent stay of criminal proceedings on grounds of alleged unfairness and abuse of process – where accused charged with offences alleged to have been committed against a person who was a tendency witness in a previous trial – where accused gave evidence in respect of tendency allegations – whether productive of unfairness – where accused “locked into” a version and effectively “locked into” giving evidence as a result of giving evidence in previous trial. The publication restriction has been removed. |
| Uploaded 3 September 2025 | DPP v McGary (No 9) [2024] ACTSC 248CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – cross-examination – where accused’s legal representative seeks to cross-examine a witness as to a message from the complainant to the witness – where message not put to the complainant – whether leave should be granted to recall the complainant under s 46 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). The publication restriction has been removed. |
| Uploaded 3 September 2025 | DPP v McGary (No 8) [2024] ACTSC 246CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Application to tender document to re-establish credibility – whether it was suggested to the witness that her evidence was fabricated or reconstructed – whether leave should be granted to admit evidence of prior consistent statements in accordance with s 192(2) of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). The publication restriction has been removed. |
| Uploaded 3 September 2025 | Ezekiel-Hart v The Council of the Law Society of the ACT (No 8) [2025] ACTSC 394CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Vexatious Litigant – Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant – application to set aside orders which declared the plaintiff as a vexatious litigant – consideration of legislative intention regarding nature of applications under s 67A(11) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT). A plaintiff who was declared to be a vexatious litigant made an application to set aside the orders that declared him as a vexatious litigant. The Court considered the legislative intention regarding nature of applications under s 67A(11) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) and dismissed his application. |
| Uploaded 2 September 2025 | DPP v McGary (No 6) [2024] ACTSC 136CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to vacate trial – where accused made complaints of criminal conduct against informant and complainant – whether trial should abide investigation of complaints – where accused of Jewish ethnicity and faith – whether current political climate precludes possibility of a fair trial – application for a Basha inquiry to cross-examine complainant. The publication restriction has been removed. |
| Uploaded 2 September 2025 | In the estate of Ian Robert McPherson [2025] ACTSC 33WILLS, PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION – application for probate – where parties seek leave by consent to amend probate application to seek probate of an earlier Will – where evidence establishes that the deceased could not have had the opportunity to approve the contents of the Will of which probate was initially sought – whether appropriate to make consent orders permitting the executor to pass over that Will. |
| Uploaded 2 September 2025 | Pesec v Zivko [2025] ACTCA 37Judgment summaryAPPEAL – appeal from costs orders – issue of duplicative representation – whether primary judge erred in concluding that at the date of the offer of compromise there was no possibility of conflict between interests – whether joint offer of compromise indicative of commonality of interest – discretionary nature of costs orders – cross-appeal dismissed The ACT Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal from the cross-appellant in relation to costs orders. The cross-appellant contended that the primary judge erred in respect to whether at the date of the offer of compromise there was no possibility of conflict between interests and by having regard to the offer of compromise indicated that there was no real possibility of such a conflict. The ground of appeal was not established and the cross-appeal was dismissed with costs following that event in the ordinary course. |
| Uploaded 2 September 2025 | DPP v Stewart-Reid [2025] ACTSC 386CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Jury Trial – application for directed verdict – burglary – theft – take motor vehicle without consent – whether the evidence establishes trespass as an element of burglary – where alleged burglary occurred at a gym – where co-offender was a member of the gym – where gym members could bring a guest pursuant to the gym’s membership agreement – whether the accused was a trespasser having regard to the gym’s membership agreement – contractual construction – question of law versus question of fact – role of judge and jury – trespass not available on construction of the contract – jury directed to acquit burglary count. The Supreme Court has allowed an application for a directed verdict by the accused. The accused was on trial for several charges including one count of burglary. It was alleged that the accused and a co-offender had stolen property from the premises of a gym. A question arose as to whether the accused was a trespasser under the terms of the gym membership agreement, where the co-offender was a member of the gym, and gym members were permitted to bring a guest to the gym. The Court found that the legal effect of the agreement was a question of law to be determined by the judge. The Court found that on the proper construction of the agreement, the accused could not be a trespasser, and therefore the burglary count could not be made out. The Court ordered a directed verdict of not guilty to be entered in respect of the burglary count. |
| Uploaded 2 September 2025 | Murrells v Johns Lying Group (ACT) Pty Ltd [2025] ACTSC 37CIVIL LAW – CIVIL PROCEDURE – application seeking inspection of property pursuant to r 715 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – where plaintiffs refuse consent to inspection of the property by the defendant – whether an inspection of the property is necessary for deciding the issues in dispute – whether a visual inspection is likely to serve the purposes of s 5A of the Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT). |
Uploaded 2 September 2025 | DPP v Stacker [2024] ACTSC 354CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – BAIL – application for bail pending a potential defence of mental impairment – requirement to establish special or exceptional circumstances favouring the grant of bail – risk of applicant falling into drug or alcohol use and committing offences. |
| Uploaded 1 September 2025 | In the matter of the adoption of CEV [2025] ACTSC 377ADOPTION – ADULT ADOPTION – Application for adoption of adult born overseas – evidence of relationship between proposed adoptee and proposed adoptive parent – good reputation of proposed adoptive parent – no immigration concerns – consent of proposed adoptee given – adoption order made. |
| Uploaded 1 September 2025 | Sheather v DPP [2024] ACTCA 33APPEAL – SUPREME COURT APPEAL – Application to dismiss for want of prosecution – where appellant repeatedly failed to appear. |
| Uploaded 1 September 2025 | In the estate of Veronica Mildred Cornelly [2024] ACTSC 375WILLS, PROBATE & ADMINISTRATION – RECTIFICATION – principles of rectification pursuant to s 12A(2) of the Wills Act 1968 (ACT) – whether Will ought to be rectified so as to give effect to testator’s probable intention – where Codicil otherwise at risk of being void for uncertainty. |
| Uploaded 28 August 2025 | DPP v Tamayo-Del-Solar (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 372 (SCC 175 of 2023; SCC 176 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – acts of indecency – guilty plea after negotiations – where offender has spent considerable time in custody awaiting sentence The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender in his seventies to a total effective sentence of 3 years and 3 months for three offences, each involving an act of indecency committed against a person who was under 16 years of age at the time. The offender had relevant criminal history and guarded rehabilitative prospects. He also had spent a significant period of time in pre-sentence custody, solely referable to the offending. The court considered that the transition back to the community should be supervised and supported rather than through immediate release. A non-parole period of two years and six months was set. As that period had already expired due to the time already served, the offender was eligible to apply for parole. |
| Uploaded 28 August 2025 | DPP v Higgins (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 309 (SCC 23 of 2023; SCC 24 of 2023; SCC 25 of 2023; SCC 209 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – various series of serious offending – breach of good behaviour orders – suspended sentences – attempts to rehabilitate – drug rehabilitation during bail – complex sentencing exercise – significant social deprivation – Bugmy factors enlivened – remorse –– extensive period of pre-sentence custody – risk of institutionalisation The ACTSC has sentenced an offender for various offences that occurred across 2021 and 2022. The offences included riding a motor vehicle without consent, attempted robbery, common assault, damage property by joint commission, assault occasioning actual bodily harm by joint commission, failing to stop motor vehicle for police, aggravated dangerous driving, driving a motor vehicle without consent, damaging property by joint commission, and driving with a level 3 PCA. |
| Uploaded 27 August 2025 | DPP v Malibe (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 378 (SCC 287 of 2023 ; SCC 110 of 2025; SCC 237 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Sentence – Breach of good behaviour order while serving suspended sentence – failure to engage with Corrective Services – further offending – unauthorised possession of prohibited firearm – whether to impose or resentence – youthful offender – difficult to assess prospects of rehabilitation while in custody – non-compliance started less than one month into bond – fresh offence shows some similarities to original offences – no substantial change of circumstances –sentence of imprisonment imposed – non-parole period imposed |
| Uploaded 27 August 2025 | DPP v Swain (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 3CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail – Breach of bail through the alleged commission of further offences by a young person |
| Uploaded 27 August 2025 | Ruspandini v Summernats Pty Ltd [2025] ACTSC 83CIVIL PROCEDURE – claim for damages for personal injury – where proceedings commenced before plaintiff had complied with the requirements of ch 5 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) – requirement for leave – where defendant seeks stay of proceedings – where competing application filed by plaintiffs seeking leave nunc pro tunc – desirability of hearing both applications together |
| Uploaded 26 August 2025 | DPP v Snowden-Crowhurst [2025] ACTSC 73 (SCC 369 of 2024; SCC 344 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis – money laundering – consideration of objective seriousness – where offender has demonstrated good prospects of rehabilitation – demonstration of remorse – whether appropriate to make intensive correction order The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a total effective sentence of two and a half years for offences of trafficking in controlled drugs other than cannabis and money laundering. The sentence is to be served by way of an intensive correction order, with additional conditions of performing 249 hours of community service and continuing to attend psychological counselling. Since spending 8 days in custody on remand, the offender has voluntarily sought treatment and actively engaged with rehabilitation services. In sentencing, the Court considered the offender’s early plea of guilty, childhood and mental health challenges, demonstration of remorse and good prospects of rehabilitation. The Court found that a sentence of full-time imprisonment would derail his rehabilitation and have a detrimental impact on his young family. |
| Uploaded 26 August 2025 | Xirakis v Xirakis [2025] ACTSC 376CIVIL PROCEDURE – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where plaintiff under legal disability – settlement of proceedings – court approval of settlement required – whether settlement in best interests – settlement approved |
| Uploaded 26 August 2025 | Heaven Builders Pty Ltd v Moustafa [2024] ACTSC 185REAL PROPERTY – CAVEATS – application to lodge a caveat – where leave is required because previous caveat has lapsed – where defendants oppose caveat due to interference with sale of the property – where builder and lawyer did not agree to an undertaking as to damages – where owners did not agree to an irrevocable undertaking to disburse proceeds of the sale to the plaintiff’s trust account – where building contract creates a caveatable interest |
| Uploaded 26 August 2025 | DPP v O’Brien (a pseudonym) (No 3) [2024] ACTSC 307CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to sever the updated indictment |
| Uploaded 26 August 2025 | In the estate of Vicki Maree Livingstone [2024] ACTSC 290WILLS, PROBATE & ADMINISTRATION – Rectification – where executor of the estate has not renounced as an executor or obtained probate of the will – where executor’s right cease failing to file any notice of intention to respond or defence |
| Uploaded 26 August 2025 | Hindmarsh Construction Australia Pty Ltd v Work Health and Safety Commissioner of the ACT [2025] ACTSC 203CIVIL LAW – Administrative Law – Judicial review – Work Health and Safety Act – Where review sought of deemed decision – whether court has power to review a deemed decision |
| Uploaded 26 August 2025 | Lily & Ruby Holdings Pty Ltd v Aulich Civil Law Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 72CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Freezing order – where freezing orders made ex parte during term break – where defendant opposed continuation of orders but failed to take any steps to prepare for contested hearing – where solicitors for defendant failed to appear in person on return date and made last minute application to appear by telephone – freezing orders continued until further order |
| Uploaded 26 August 2025 | Lily & Ruby Holdings Pty Ltd v Aulich Civil Law Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2024] ACTSC 412CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ex parte application for freezing orders – whether evidence establishes a good arguable case – whether evidence establishes a risk that the defendants will dissipate assets – whether balance of convenience justifies the freezing orders |
| Uploaded 26 August 2025 | DPP v Jimmie (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 369CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Breach of good behaviour orders – where offender on pathway to rehabilitation – breach offence of low objective seriousness – recommendation of corrective services that good behaviour order be amended by adding a greater level of supervision |
| Uploaded 26 August 2025 | DPP v Timalsina (No 3) [2024] ACTSC 346CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FITNESS TO PLEAD – where question of fitness to plead arose during jury trial – where Court requested examination of the accused by a psychiatrist – where accused remanded in custody following miscarriage of previous trial – salutary effect of period on remand on accused’s engagement with lawyers – where psychiatrist found accused was capable of being an effective participant in the proceedings |
| Uploaded 26 August 2025 | DPP v Timalsina (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 280CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FITNESS TO PLEAD – whether accused’s conduct raised a real and substantial question about the accused’s fitness to plead – where accused’s counsel was unable to obtain instructions |
| Uploaded 26 August 2025 | DPP v Curtis-Hodge [2025] ACTSC 373CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – trial by judge alone – identification – circumstantial case – aggravated burglary – joint commission theft – drive motor vehicle without consent – verdict – not guilty |
| Uploaded 26 August 2025 | DPP v Rossiter (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 39CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – where accused failed to appear for trial – where accused an elderly man who permanently resides in Queensland – failure to put forward any bail proposal to reside in the Territory – risk of further failure to appear |
| Uploaded 26 August 2025 | DPP v Rossiter (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 12CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where accused not on bail failed to appear for trial – whether the Court has power to issue a warrant for his arrest |
| Uploaded 25 August 2025 | R v Roy (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 305CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to set aside part of a subpoena – where subpoena based on misreading of an affidavit sworn in support of an application for a search warrant – whether subpoena too broad CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for certificate under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Cth) – whether documents sought could lead to a chain of inquiry that could establish that the manner in which the evidence was obtained involved an unlawful interception – whether documents might show that foreign collection of personal data would be a breach of privacy in Australia – whether foreign country was likely to grant request for assistance – whether material sought from the foreign country not otherwise available – whether material would likely be admitted in the proceeding – probative value of the material if admitted – whether the material has real and not speculative significance |
| Uploaded 21 August 2025 | Kerr v Calvary Health Care ACT Ltd [2025] ACTSC 106CIVIL PROCEDURE – claim for damages for medical negligence – where proceedings commenced before completion of requirements under Ch 5 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) – where proceedings commenced in order to avoid expiration of limitation period – consideration of requirement for leave to commence proceedings. Leave granted to the plaintiff nunc pro tunc to begin the proceedings despite non-compliance with ch 5 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002. |
| Uploaded 19 August 2025 | Turner (a pseudonym) by his litigation guardian Turner (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth [2025] ACTSC 101CIVIL LAW – claims for damages and false imprisonment by the Australian Federal Police – where court approval is required for settlement involving a minor. |
| Uploaded 19 August 2025 | Umunakwe v DPP [2025] ACTCA 34Judgment summaryAPPEAL – Appeal against conviction – verdict by jury – whether verdict unreasonable or unable to be supported by the evidence – assessment of the reliability of the complainant – role of appellate court – appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal by the appellant from the conviction imposed following a finding of guilt to one count of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The appellant relied on a single ground of appeal, being that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. The ground of appeal was not established and the appeal was dismissed. |
| Uploaded 19 August 2025 | DPP v Rossiter [2024] ACTSC 401CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Fitness to Plead – where solicitor for the accused raises a question as to fitness to plead – where psychologist expresses opinion that the accused is not fit to plead – whether there is a real and substantial question about the accused’s fitness to plead – where prosecution contends psychologist’s report does not rebut the presumption of fitness – where prosecution raises a question as to the impartiality of the information provided to the psychologist – consideration of the nature of the Court’s task in determining whether to be satisfied that there is a real and substantial question about the accused’s fitness to plead. |
| Uploaded 19 August 2025 | Francis (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth of Australia [2023] ACTSC 222CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY– Sexual violence communications privilege – Application for leave to issue subpoenas and disclose protected confidence in and for the purposes of the proceedings– leave sought nunc pro tunc for records already disclosed to defendant– application granted. |
| Uploaded 19 August 2025 | DPP v Myers (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 354CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Trial by judge alone – special hearing due to unfitness to plead - charge of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm – no appearance by the accused – whether trial could continue in absence of the accused – consideration of interests of accused, complainant and witnesses – consideration of delay of proceedings. Orders by an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court were made to allow a special hearing to proceed in the absence of the accused. In the exercise of the Court’s discretion, the considerations that weighed more heavily are as follows: the seriousness of the allegations, the interests of the accused, the availability of the witnesses and the potential risk of the prosecution becoming stale. |
| Uploaded 19 August 2025 | The Owners - Units Plan 4421 v Geocon Constructors (ACT) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 333PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUBPOENAS – Whether subpoenas should be issued on defendants prior to close of pleadings – where subpoenas sought to be issued only to particularise existing pleadings – where leave to replead statement of claim granted but as yet unexercised – where position in relation to thirteenth defendant not yet certain – more appropriate to move matter toward closure of pleadings The Supreme Court had before it an application seeking that subpoenas be issued to defendants prior to the close of pleadings. The subpoenas were sought to be issued only to particularise existing pleadings, in circumstances where leave to replead the statement of claim had been granted but as yet remained unexercised. Further, the position in relation to the thirteenth defendant was not yet certain.The court held that it would be more appropriate to move matter toward closure of pleadings. |
| Uploaded 18 August 2025 | DPP v Connell (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 299CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Sexual offence proceedings – pre-trial application to adduce evidence of complainant’s prior sexual activities – operation of ss 76, 77, 78 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) – substantial relevance to facts in issue – proper matter for cross-examination about credit – leave granted in limited scope. The publication restriction has now been lifted. |
| Uploaded 18 August 2025 | DPP v Connell [2023] ACTSC 220CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – pre-trial application – application to adduce tendency evidence – charged and uncharged acts – proceedings involving alleged historical child sexual offences – s 97A of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – presumption that tendency evidence has significant probative value – exceptional circumstances – application refused in part. The publication restriction has now been lifted. |
| Uploaded 15 August 2025 | Mason-Leonarder v Balfran Removals Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 363CIVIL LAW – NEGLIGENCE – Personal injury – injury suffered during the course of employment as a removalist – settlement reached during course of hearing – defendants consented to verdict in plaintiff’s favour – consideration of apportionment of liability between the two defendants. |
| Uploaded 15 August 2025 | Decision Restricted [2025] ACTSC 349CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Evidence – application to exclude improperly or unlawfully obtained evidence pursuant to s 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 (Cth) CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Evidence – crime scene powers – where crime scene established over two conveyances without the consent of the occupier – where conveyances were moved to another location to facilitate a search – power to move conveyance using crime scene powers – whether reasonably necessary to establish a crime scene to preserve evidence – whether reasonably necessary to move conveyances – no illegality established – application dismissed CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Evidence – search warrant powers – where a conveyance the subject of a search warrant moved to another location for the purpose of conducting a search – whether search warrant conferred power to move a conveyance the subject of search warrant – no such power stands – legislative lacuna – illegality established – proper scope of causal nexus required to establish evidence was obtained “in consequence of” the illegality – “fruit of a very large tree poisoned” – where probative value of the evidence high – where illegality not deliberate – where search would have been lawful if crime scene powers had been invoked – desirability of admitting evidence outweighs undesirability of admitting evidence – application dismissed As the judgment is restricted, it is not publicly available. Any enquires about this decision should be directed to Baker J’s chambers. Associate.BakerJ@courts.act.gov.au |
| Uploaded 15 August 2025 | DPP v Garcia (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 372CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Ground Rules Hearing – consideration of intermediary report and recommendations – vulnerable witness – directions made as to manner of questioning of witness The publication restriction has now been lifted |
| Uploaded 13 August 2025 | In the Estate of Allen Sidney Alcock [2025] ACTSC 351CIVIL LAW – WILLS AND ESTATES – application to rectify will – where last will drafted without legal assistance – where will made gift to an organisation no longer in existence – where will made gift to another person “to be shared” with that person’s grandchildren – where that person predeceased the deceased – whether terms of the will expressed an intention to create a trust – no such intention found – whether rectification of will ought to be made so as to give effect to testator’s probable intention – leave to apply out of time granted - will rectified The Supreme Court has made an order for rectification pursuant to s 12A of the Wills Act 1968. The deceased had left a gift to a charitable organisation no longer in existence, and to a friend “to be shared with” that friend’s grandchildren. The friend predeceased the deceased. The Court rectified the deceased’s Will to allow the executor to distribute the gift to other charitable organisations, and for the money left to the friend to be held on trust for the friend’s grandchildren. |
| Uploaded 13 August 2025 | Shearman v Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd [2025] ACTCA 33APPEAL – APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT – Civil law – application for leave to appeal – appeal from three separate interlocutory decisions – appeal to set aside judgments – leave refused. |
| Uploaded 12 August 2025 | Lily and Ruby Holdings Pty Ltd v Aulich Civil Law Pty Ltd (No 3) (In Liquidation)PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – applications for further disclosure – discovery – rules 605 and 606 of the Court Procedures Rules – plaintiff and defendant applications – request for further documents relating to discrete categories – various orders for further discovery made |
| Uploaded 12 August 2025 | DPP v Lodding (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 47CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Pre-trial application - application to edit Evidence in Chief Interview – context evidence The publication restriction has now been lifted |
| Uploaded 11 August 2025 | DPP v Crompton [2025] ACTSC 352 (SCC 2 of 2025; SCC 3 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – attempted aggravated robbery – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – intentional wounding – minor theft – common assault – property damage – youthful offender – rehabilitation prioritised – whether drug and alcohol treatment order appropriate. The Supreme Court has sentenced a 20-year-old offender to a sentence of imprisonment for 2 years, 5 months and 10 days. The offender had pleaded guilty at an early stage to various offences including attempted aggravated robbery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, wounding and damaging property. Good behaviour orders were imposed in respect of two further offences, being minor theft and common assault. The offending had all occurred over one night in April in 2024 with the offender intoxicated and having consumed drugs. The offender a strong subjective case, including social disadvantage and mental health disorders and had served more than a year of the sentence in full time custody. The court ordered that the sentence be served by way of a drug and alcohol treatment order was imposed for the remainder of the sentence. |
| Uploaded 11 August 2025 | DPP v Lodding (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 46CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Pre-trial application - application to edit Evidence in Chief Interview – context evidence The publication restriction has now been lifted |
| Uploaded 11 August 2025 | DPP v Lodding (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 32CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – application to adduce evidence of complainant’s prior sexual activity – s 76 Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) - substantial relevance to the facts in issue – application dismissed – late last-minute pre-trial applications The publication restriction has now been lifted |
| Uploaded 11 August 2025 | DPP v Lodding [2024] ACTSC 244CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pre-trial application – application to adduce tendency evidence – whether exceptional circumstances exist – consideration of s 97A of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – whether presumption of probative value can be rebutted – significant gap in time and differences between the offending – presumption rebutted – unfair prejudice outweighs probative value – tendency evidence inadmissible in the trial of the accused The publication restriction has been lifted |
| Uploaded 8 August 2025 | Zhou v Haider [2025] ACTSC 348APPEAL – CIVIL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court –whether loan agreements should be set aside under the National Credit Code – whether the Code applied to loan agreements – whether appellant provided credit in the course of a business of providing credit carried on in this jurisdiction or part of or incidentally to any other business of the appellant carried on in this jurisdiction – where the buying and selling of properties lacked the regularity, continuity or system to allow it to be characterised as a business at the relevant times – where the two loans themselves did not constitute a business – appeal allowed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – Date on which judgment takes effect – whether judgment should be backdated to the date of the magistrate’s decision – r 1605 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – where backdating would avoid exorbitant contractual interest rate applying after the magistrate’s decision – where backdating would defeat a contractual entitlement of the appellant and the additional interest would be a result of the respondents leading the magistrate into error – judgment not backdated The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal from the Magistrates Court and made orders allowing a lender to recover money owing from three borrowers under a loan agreement. The court found that the National Credit Code did not apply to the loan agreement (or a previous agreement). This was because the lender’s buying and selling of properties lacked the regularity, continuity or system to be characterised as a business, and the loans themselves did not constitute a business. The Court also found that the judgment should not be backdated to the date of the magistrate’s decision. |
| Uploaded 6 August 2025 | DPP v Rossiter (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 212CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment –Fitness to plead – investigation into the fitness of the applicant – Presser criteria – capacity to follow the course of the proceeding – capacity to provide instructions to lawyers – extreme age – applicant not fit to plead |
| Uploaded 6 August 2025 | Kalvakuntla v Horton [2025] ACTSC 341APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – appeal against conviction – family violence – aggravated assault – whether the Magistrate erred in her approach to section 17 considerations of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act |
| Uploaded 6 August 2025 | Jolley v Construction Occupations Registrar (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 347BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – RECTIFICATION ORDERS – Whether rectification order should be issued – discretionary decision – forensic decision by nominee not to provide evidence of quality assurance processes made it more difficult to make findings that he was not culpable for defects – financial burden of rectification order a consequence of nominee’s own decisions – rectification order made STATUTES – INTERPRETATION – Costs powers of the ACAT – where s 48 of the ACAT Act is simply not coherent – where explanatory material is concerningly significant in the provision’s construction – CIC Australia correctly decided – ACAT has only a narrow costs power STATUTES – PRESUMPTIONS – Presumption of reenactment – where a not coherent provision amended subsequent to a relevant judicial decision – where amendments consistent with existing interpretation – presumption of reenactment may have more work to do in the ACT than in larger jurisdictions as there is often a tighter feedback loop between judicial decisions and legislative action PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Costs powers in ACAT appeal proceedings removed to the Supreme Court – Supreme Court retains its own costs powers and discretions in removed appeal proceedings – ACAT limited costs regime a relevant consideration in the exercise of the costs discretion The Supreme Court has ordered the nominee of a building company to personally rectify, or arrange and pay for the rectification of, building defects in the Manhattan on the Park development. The nominee was also ordered to pay 90 percent of the Owners Corporation’s costs. However, the court stayed the orders for 28 days by agreement of the parties, to allow any party to appeal. The Supreme Court also made observations about the costs powers of the ACAT, noting that the relevant provision is simply not coherent and confirming the existing interpretation that the ACAT has limited costs powers. |
| Uploaded 6 August 2025 | Truman (a pseudonym) v Chapman [2025] ACTSC 340APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – family violence – choking – appeal against conviction –failure to negate self-defence – errors in assessing complainant’s evidence – whether verdicts are inconsistent – whether verdict is unreasonable |
| Uploaded 6 August 2025 | Smith (a pseudonym) v Australian Capital Territory (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 345CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – application for leave to disclose produced protected confidence evidence – mandatory considerations in granting leave – evidence inspected by Court – plaintiff consents to disclosure – leave granted |
| Uploaded 6 August 2025 | Elliott v Elly Property Wright Residential Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 344REAL PROPERTY – CAVEATS – application to remove caveat – multi-unit residential development – caveats lodged by purchasers prior to units plan registration – caveats apply to entire development plot – mechanical process of registering units plan – removal of caveats required to register units plan – orders made to remove existing caveats and enter new caveats on unit titles on registration of units plan |
| Uploaded 5 August 2025 | DPP v Mussa [2025] ACTSC 342 (SCC 277 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – two counts of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a commercial drug – cocaine and methylamphetamine – financial motivation for offending – co-offender – parity – significant remorse and prospects for rehabilitation – displayed genuine remorse – imposition of an ICO would fail to give adequate effect to primary sentencing considerations |
| Uploaded 5 August 2025 | IP Property Botany Street Pty Ltd v Territory Planning Authority [2025] ACTSC 346APPEAL – APPEAL FROM ACAT – application for review of denial of development approval – question of law and error identified – possibility of more favourable outcome for applicant – prejudice if leave refused – leave to appeal granted – appeal allowed ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – failure to hear oral evidence from witnesses – failure to allow applicant to respond to Tribunal concerns – applicant denied procedural fairness – statutory discretion to extend time limits under s 22P of ACAT Act – incorrect consideration of discretion – constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction – errors of law established – matter remitted for rehearing The Supreme Court has upheld an appeal from a decision of ACAT in a planning dispute, and remitted the matter for rehearing. The appeal arose from ACAT’s review of a decision by the Planning and Land Authority to refuse development approval for a construction project. During the hearing of the matter, ACAT declined to hear oral evidence, did not provide the applicant with sufficient time to make certain submissions, and incorrectly considered time limits under s 22P of the ACAT Act. The Court found the applicant had been denied procedural fairness and that ACAT had constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction. |
| Uploaded 4 August 2025 | DPP v Yeaman [2025] ACTSC 338CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – repeat application – whether there has been a change of circumstances – where accused is remanded in respect of a serious offence and is alleged to have committed the offence while a charge for another serious offence is pending – whether special or exceptional circumstances exist favouring grant of bail under s 9D of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) – where prisoner wishes to transition from male to female gender – where prison environment less suitable – where matters raised on previous bail application – no change of circumstances – no special and exceptional circumstances |
| Uploaded 4 August 2025 | Higgins v ACT (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 336EQUITY – DECLARATORY RELIEF – appropriate form of orders to give effect to equitable scheme of development – whether inappropriate to make declarations to quell potential future controversies The Supreme Court has declared that the Territory and its agents, including the Territory Planning Authority, are obliged to give effect to a restrictive covenant over the golf course located in Nicholls, whereby the use of the land is restricted to the purpose of a golf course and purposes ancillary to a golf course. The declaration followed the Court’s earlier finding that a scheme of development was established in respect of the residential development at Harcourt Hill and the golf course. However, the benefit of the declaratory relief was limited to the plaintiff’s land in the proceeding, as the other affected landowners had not been notified. |
| Uploaded 4 August 2025 | In the matter of a parentage order [2025] ACTSC 337PARENTAGE – application under Parentage Act 2004 (ACT) – where two children born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement – effect of amendments to Parentage Act which came into force after the birth of the first child and after the conception of the second child – where transitional provisions permitted order and order in best interests of each child – parentage orders made WORDS AND PHRASES – Parentage Act 2004 (ACT) – “surrogacy arrangement” The Supreme Court has published reasons for making parentage orders in respect of two children born through surrogacy arrangements. The application followed amendments to the Parentage Act 2004, as each child was born using the genetic material of the surrogate and the Act had previously excluded orders in such cases. The Supreme Court applied the transitional provisions to the Act, which permitted the orders to now be made. In the course of making the orders, the operation of the presumptions under the Act and the broad definition of “surrogacy arrangement” under the Act were considered. |
| Uploaded 1 August 2025 | Manny v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] ACTSC 335PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – application for pleadings to be set aside – application for proceedings to be stayed – application for summary judgment - where claims sought to be raised previously litigated and determined – proceeding stayed until further order of the Court. |
| Uploaded 1 August 2025 | DPP v Maher [2025] ACTSC 339CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Trial – trial by judge alone – 208 counts of theft – unauthorised use of credit cards between January 2018 and September 2019 – where accused appointed as complainant’s power of attorney – where accused and complainant co-habiting – bank records – factors affecting reliability of complainant’s evidence. The Supreme Court has found an accused, who was charged with 208 counts of theft, guilty on 28 counts and acquitted him on 175 counts (5 counts were discontinued). The Court found that the accused used the complainant’s bankcard for his own purposes without authorisation. The accused and the complainant were friends since they were teenagers. The complainant became a quadriplegic following a motor vehicle accident and requires 24/7 care and living assistance. The accused visited the complainant during his hospital stay and was later appointed as the complainant’s power of attorney and had access to his bankcards. The two co-habited after the complainant was released from hospital in August 2018. All of the charges in respect of which the accused was acquitted arose out of transactions on the bankcard after the two had commenced co-habiting. |
| Uploaded 1 August 2025 | DPP v Kazmar-Hall (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 326 (SCC 237 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – arson – fire lit in response to neighbours unrelenting bass music – risk to other residents – reduced moral culpability – term of imprisonment already served. |
| Uploaded 1 August 2025 | Tattersall v Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd [2025] ACTCA 30Judgment summaryAPPEAL – CIVIL LAW – Costs – whether plaintiff’s offer of compromise clearly identified proposed orders necessary for disposal of claim – whether Primary Judge erred in finding offer non-compliant with r 1002 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – where offer did not state whether it could be accepted by all defendants jointly or by one or more alone – offer open to two possible constructions – offeror’s intention capable of being discerned by inference – inferring intention does not cure deficiency – offer ambiguous and non-compliant with the Rules – appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a special costs order based on an offer of compromise. The Court upheld the primary judge’s determination that the offer did not comply with r 1002 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) because it failed to clearly state the proposed orders for disposal of the claim or part of the claim. |
| Uploaded 1 August 2025 | DPP v Powell [2025] ACTSC 282 (SCC 310 of 2024; SCC 396 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – additional offences – offending in 2014 and 2024 – firearm stolen – home invasion – community protection – parity – guarded prospects of rehabilitation – eligibility for treatment order – duration of sentence – structure of sentence – NSW parole revocation order – ineligible for treatment order as subject to sentencing order – imprisonment and parole order. |
| Uploaded 31 July 2025 | DPP v Kazmar-Hall [2025] ACTSC 325CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judge alone trial – arson – where accused set fire to own unit – conduct in extenuating circumstances – relentless music emanating from neighbouring unit – previous attempts to resolve issue unsuccessful – whether act of self-defence – imminence or immediacy of threat – reasonableness of response – agreed facts – impacts on accused’s health – verdict cannot be based on sympathy – guilty. |
| Uploaded 31 July 2025 | DPP v Clouns (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 288 (SCC 39 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated use of child to produce child abuse material – family violence – rolled up count – grave breach of trust and exploitation of daughter – offender subject to abuse as a child – material role in offending – generational impacts of childhood sexual abuse –genuine remorse for offending – assistance to authorities by admissions – reduction in penalty – insight into causes of offending – solid prospects of rehabilitation – low risk of reoffending – fulltime imprisonment necessary to fulfill sentencing purposes of punishment, denunciation, accountability and deterrence – early partial suspension to reflect mitigating factors. |
| Uploaded 31 July 2025 | Riley v St Vincent de Paul Society Canberra/Goulburn [2025] ACTSC 321APPEAL – APPEAL FROM ACAT – application for leave to appeal from ACAT – whether substantial injustice if leave not given – errors in ACAT decision – leave given |
| Uploaded 31 July 2025 | Ghiasvand v Concrete Menders Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 320APPEAL – CIVIL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – where appellants assert magistrate erred in finding that an oral contract existed – where appellants assert certain findings were outside the pleadings and there was no evidence to support certain representations or facts – appellants conceded certain points in the court below – conclusions open to the magistrate – appeal dismissed. |
| Uploaded 30 July 2025 | DPP v Tate [2025] ACTSC 327 (SCC 431 of 2024, SCC 145 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – Sentence – theft, robbery and burglary offences at multiple retail stores in Canberra – where Bugmy factors present – Verdins principles applicable – whether prosecution case was overwhelmingly strong – where admission and self-reporting contributed to strength of prosecution case but also constituted assistance to authorities – whether drug and alcohol treatment order appropriate The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a term of imprisonment of 3 years, 6 months and 5 days for numerous offences including theft, burglary and robbery. The offender’s previous good behaviour order under a suspended sentence was also cancelled and the original sentence of imprisonment for 9 months imposed. The offender had strong subjective circumstances arising from a disadvantaged background and a number of psychological conditions and was found suitable for a drug and alcohol treatment order, which was ultimately imposed in respect of the most recent offending only. |
| Uploaded 29 July 2025 | DPP v Rossiter (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 328CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Historical child sexual offences – special hearing due to unfitness to plead – special hearing conducted by judge alone – allegations of indecent assault, carnal knowledge and persistent sexual abuse of biological daughter – whether proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in the conduct required for the offence charged – consideration of whether the offending falls within the definition of serious offence |
| Uploaded 29 July 2025 | DPP v Robertson (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 308 (SCC 341 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – act of indecency without consent – sexual intercourse without consent – offender found guilty at jury trial – offences in the low to mid range of objective seriousness – offender otherwise a person of good character – low risk of re-offending – intensive correction order would not serve the purposes of sentencing – sentence of full-time imprisonment imposed – sentence partially suspended, subject to a good behaviour order. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender who was found guilty on two counts of committing an act of indecency without consent and two counts of sexual intercourse without consent. The offender was sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment, to be suspended after nine months upon entering into a three-year good behaviour order. In imposing this sentence, the court took into account the low to mid-range seriousness of the offences, the low risk of re-offending, the evidence that the offender was otherwise of good character, the impact on the victim, and the need for a period of full-time imprisonment to fulfil the purposes of sentencing. The court also noted the obvious risk of sexual offending in the institutional environment of ADFA. |
| Uploaded 29 July 2025 | Fong v The State of New South Wales [2025] ACTSC 329JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CROSS-VESTING – application to transfer proceedings to NSW Supreme Court – vicarious liability claim – plaintiff domiciled in Queensland – uncertainty around witnesses to be called – events of claim occurred in Sydney – transfer in interests of justice – proceedings transferred |
| Uploaded 28 July 2025 | DPP v Meadow (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 180 (SCC 257 of 2024; SCC 258 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated stalking – aggravated distribute intimate image without consent – aggravated threat to distribute intimate image – use carriage service to harass – family violence offending – ‘love bombing’ – level of sophistication – criminal history includes family violence offences – whether drug and alcohol treatment order appropriate and suitable – assessed as medium-high risk of general reoffending – offender likely had severe substance use disorder at time of offending – where offender has previously engaged in residential rehabilitation program – offender demonstrates insight and remorse for offending – offender would benefit from continued intensive oversight and supervision – period of imprisonment only appropriate sentence – treatment order imposed |
| Uploaded 28 July 2025 | De Maine v Kizmann [2025] ACTCA 26APPEAL – APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT – Application for leave to appeal out of time – where basis of delay is a mistaken belief that $1,000,000 is to be paid to the court to hear the appeal – delay adequately explained – where appellant was not cross-examined at hearing – where appellant believes outcome of hearing would have been different had he been cross-examined – no fresh evidence to be adduced – forensic decision not to be manipulated to permit a re-hearing – appeal dismissed |
| Uploaded 25 July 2025 | Manny v Australian Postal Corporation; Manny v Commonwealth; Manny v University of Canberra [2025] ACTCA 24APPEAL – APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT – Civil law – application for leave to appeal – appeal from interlocutory decision – appeal to set aside judgment– leave refused. |
| Uploaded 25 July 2025 | Kuo v Barrow Yu (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 286PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FREEZING ORDERS – Lapse of freezing orders – where, at return date of freezing order, further evidence put before the court – where further evidence not consistent with an attempt to shield assets – appropriate to allow freezing order to lapse PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Personal costs – where defence sought personal costs against plaintiffs’ solicitors or counsel – where defence counsel alleged plaintiffs breached obligations in ex parte hearings by misrepresenting or not disclosing certain matters – matters referred to by defence counsel are not misleading or otherwise insignificant – personal costs orders (1) potentially destructive of lawyer–client relationship and (2) productive of fragmentation and delay in litigation by the creation of procedural side issues – personal costs orders not made PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Costs following ex parte grant of freezing order – where freezing order allowed to lapse due to further evidence – where a reasonable settlement offer made at a very late stage prior to return date of freezing order – where capacity of plaintiffs’ solicitors to act for them interfered with by an application by defendants for personal costs orders in related proceedings – limited costs order made in favour of defendants The Supreme Court conducted a hearing on the return date of a freezing order made on 19 June 2025 (see Kuo v Barrow‑Yu [2025] ACTSC 259). The court permitted the freezing order to lapse as further evidence put before the court on this occasion was inconsistent with an attempt by the defendants to shield assets. The Supreme Court declined to make personal costs orders against the plaintiffs’ solicitors, rejecting submissions that the court was misled. The court noted that such orders can destroy the lawyer‑client relationship and lead to fragmentation and delay in proceedings due to the creation of procedural side issues. |
| Uploaded 25 July 2025 | DPP v Hudson (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 310CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Review – drug and alcohol treatment order – graduation – rehabilitation from substance dependency – gridiron and netball – order confirmed. |
| Uploaded 24 July 2025 | DPP v Clifford [2025] ACTSC 307 (SCC 35 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle – aggravated common assault – aggravated intentionally attempt to inflict grievous bodily harm – family violence – offender sentenced to four years imprisonment – non-parole period of two years and six months imposed. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for three counts of aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle another person, two counts of aggravated common assault, and one count of aggravated intentionally attempt to inflict grievous bodily harm. The offender received a head sentence of four years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and six months. |
| Uploaded 24 July 2025 | DPP v Eneliko; DPP v Crichton; DPP v Pauga; DPP v Ogden (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 306 (SCC 353 of 2024; SCC 354 of 2024; SCC 378 of 2024; SCC 379 of 2024;SCC 32, 68 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – joint commission aggravated burglary – joint commission intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm – joint commission assault occasioning actual bodily harm – four co-offenders – youthful offenders – young person – home invasion – stabbing –– planned, premeditated and targeted – motivation unclear – first offender principally responsible for physical violence offending – other co-offenders still have significant culpability – partial concurrency to reflect distinct offending and victims – parity – whether prosecution case overwhelmingly strong – differing reductions for pleas of guilty and assistance to authorities – subjective circumstances of co-offenders – deterrence, accountability and recognition of harm caused to victims – prospects of rehabilitation – deterrent effect of nonparole period not necessary – first to third offenders to serve partially suspended terms of imprisonment – young person has strong prospects of rehabilitation – young person to serve fully suspended term of imprisonment. |
| Uploaded 24 July 2025 | CL v GH; CL v EL; CL v ML [2025] ACTSC 317APPEAL – APPEAL FROM ACT MAGISTRATES COURT – Appeal against a family violence order – Family Violence Act 2016 ss 8 and 34 – establishment of family violence – damaging property. |
| Uploaded 23 July 2025 | DPP v Sheather (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 318 (SCC 124 of 2021; SCC 125 of 2021)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach of suspended sentence by reoffending – breach of a breach of a breach – effect of imposition – s 110(2)(a) Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) – resentence – sentencing purposes now focused on consequences of breach. |
| Uploaded 23 July 2025 | DPP v Massey [2025] ACTSC 312 (SCC 340 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Drive motor vehicle without consent – aggravated dangerous driving – repeat offender – offending occurred while on parole – moderate reduction for relatively early pleas of guilty – offender meets criteria for stimulant use disorder in sustained remission – offender found unsuitable for drug and alcohol treatment order – difficulty in complying with order – treatment order not forcibly pressed – high risk of general reoffending – prospects of rehabilitation – Bugmy and Verdins principles enlivened – failure of village – moral culpability reduced – risk of institutionalisation – community protection – full time imprisonment – nonparole period. |
| Uploaded 23 July 2025 | P v Q [2025] ACTSC 319PARENTAGE ORDER – application for transfer of parentage under s 28H of the Parentage Act 2004 (ACT) – where surrogacy arrangement entered into prior to commencement of Parentage (Surrogacy) Amendment Act 2024 (ACT) and child was born after commencement – consideration of transitional provisions – application of s 56 of Parentage Act – parentage order made. |
| Uploaded 23 July 2025 | DPP v Gill [2025] ACTSC 124 (SCC 186 of 2024, SCC 187 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – drive motor vehicle without consent – drive motor vehicle at police – aggravated dangerous driving – use number plate not properly issued for vehicle – repeat offender – reduction in sentence for plea of guilty – some remorse and insight into offending – no leniency available with reference to criminal history – unstable accommodation – whether drug and alcohol treatment order suitable and appropriate – likelihood of severe substance use disorder – offender of older age and maturity – offender has not had previous opportunity for intensive supervision in community – treatment order provides ‘wrap-around’ support – treatment order imposed. |
| Uploaded 22 July 2025 | DPP v Phonsaya [2025] ACTSC 311 (SCC 422 of 2024)CRIMINAL – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – driving – intentional wound – recklessly inflect grievous bodily harm. |
| Uploaded 22 July 2025 | Chol v Frick [2025] ACTSC 316APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – appeal against conviction – refusing to undergo an alcohol screen test – failing or refusing to provide a sample of breath in accordance with the reasonable directions of a police officer – collision of vehicle into a wall to a residential unit – whether the magistrate erred in finding police had reasonable cause to suspect – whether verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory having regard to the evidence – appeal on one charge dismissed – appeal on second charge upheld – conviction reversed. The Appellant was found guilty by a Magistrate of refusing to undergo an alcohol screening test and failing or refusing to provide a sample of breath in accordance with the reasonable directions of a police officer near a scene of a collision by a vehicle into a wall to a residential unit. The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal on one charge, refusing to undergo an alcohol screening test, but upheld the appeal on the other charge of failing or refusing to provide a sample of breath in accordance with the reasonable directions of a police officer. The finding of guilt on that charge was set aside and the appellant was acquitted on that charge. |
| Uploaded 22 July 2025 | Copeland v Ellis and Hall [2025] ACTSC 304CIVIL – SUCCESSION – Wills, Probate and Administration– Application for executors to start proceeding for grant of representation in solemn form – weak suspicious circumstances – application dismissed. |
| Uploaded 21 July 2025 | Pretorius v Higgins (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 314CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Assessment of costs – application to set aside or permanently stay proceedings – originating claim set aside and the claim set out in that originating claim permanently stayed – question of costs heard on the papers following the application – exercise of the Court’s discretion in relation to costs – consideration of what order is fair and where the interests of justice lie – respondent to pay the applicant’s costs. The Supreme Court ordered a respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application to set aside or permanently stay proceedings. The question of costs was heard on the papers following that application. The Court exercised its discretion of who should bear the cost of those proceedings. The Court considered what order is fair and where the interests of justice lie. |
| Uploaded 21 July 2025 | Tennent Group Pty Ltd v Veritec Pty Ltd [2025] ACTSC 313PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PRELIMINARY DISCOVERY – application for discovery of documents from prospective defendants – whether sufficient basis to show potential cause of action exists – whether reasonable inquiries made – whether documents sought relevant to deciding whether to bring proceedings – narrow scope of proposed discovery. |
| Uploaded 21 July 2025 | DPP v Wilson (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2025] ACTCA 13Judgment summaryCRIMINAL LAW – tendency evidence – acts of indecency to persons under 16 years by a young person – whether in the interests of justice to revisit pre-trial ruling admitting tendency evidence – whether presumption of significant probative value under s 97A of the Evidence Act was displaced – where prosecution sought to rely on different tendency to that specified in the tendency notice – appeal dismissed. In April 2025, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal against the primary judge’s decision to disallow tendency evidence in relation to alleged sexual offending against two sisters, and to sever the indictment accordingly. The Court found that the primary judge did not err in finding that it was in the interests of justice to revisit the pre-trial tendency ruling, and that the s 97A presumption was displaced. However, the tendency the subject of the primary judgment was not the tendency relied on at the first trial. The Court noted that the dismissing of this appeal does not preclude the appellant from filing an amended tendency notice relying on the tendency that was relied upon in the first trial. |
| Uploaded 21 July 2025 | DPP v D’Alessandro (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 275 (SCC 201 of 2023; SCC 50 of 2024; SCC 308 of 2024; SCC 309 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary by joint commission – theft by joint commission – drive motor vehicle without consent – theft by joint commission – two sequences of burglaries – young offender – application of Bugmy principles and parity principles – term of imprisonment imposed to be suspended after 12 months. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for 24 counts of aggravated burglary by joint commission, 5 counts of theft by joint commission, one count of drive motor vehicle without consent and 13 counts of minor theft by joint commission. The Court sentenced the offender to four years imprisonment, to be suspended after one year, and made a compensation order. |
| Uploaded 21 July 2025 | Allred v DPP [2025] ACTCA 25Judgment summaryAPPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from sentence in Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List (DASL) – where appellant with long history of drug use and offending sentenced to a Treatment Order in the DASL – where appellant unwilling or unable to comply with the Treatment Order – where Treatment Order cancelled and original sentence imposed – whether sentencing judge considered relevant considerations – whether sentence manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from sentence in Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List (DASL) – where Treatment Order cancelled and original sentence imposed – whether assertion that the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive is an appeal against the original sentence – imposition involves only a limited exercise of judicial power STATUTES – INTERPRETATION – Drafting – interaction between general sentencing provisions and the imposition provisions in the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) – where drafting s 80ZE(3) “odd” and “curious” – issue unnecessary to decide in this appeal The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal from a sentence in the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List (DASL). The appellant, who has a long history of drug use and offending, had been sentenced to a drug and alcohol treatment order (Treatment Order) in the DASL. Later, he was found unwilling or unable to comply with the Treatment Order. The Treatment Order was cancelled and the original sentence imposed. The CoA found that, in imposing the sentence, the sentencing judge neither failed to consider relevant considerations nor imposed a sentence that was manifestly excessive. |
| Uploaded 17 July 2025 | DPP v Atem [2025] ACTSC 301 (SCC 411 of 2025; SCC 412 of 2025)CRIMINAL – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – judgment and punishment – sentence – intentionally inflect grievous bodily harm – threat to inflect grievous bodily harm – destroy or damage property – offender has a refugee background – period of imprisonment imposed. |
| Uploaded 17 July 2025 | DPP v Sullivan (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 303 (SCC 322 of 2022)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse without consent – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – mixed jury verdicts – whether guilty verdict encompassed more than one act of penile-vaginal penetration –whether offender of good character – interstate family – loss of employment prospects – no remorse. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for 2 counts of sexual intercourse without consent and 1 count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Court sentenced the offender to three years and three months’ imprisonment, to be suspended after fifteen months. |
| Uploaded 17 July 2025 | El-Debel v The King; Kahlon v The King [2025] ACTCA 23Judgment summaryAPPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against Conviction – conspiracy with intention to dishonestly obtain a gain from a Commonwealth entity – whether verdicts unreasonable – whether open to the jury to conclude that the appellants had entered into an agreement to dishonestly influence the procurement system for the selection of candidates to a government department – where evidence that the appellants would receive a portion of the margin received by labour hire companies – history and proper construction of s 135.4 of the Criminal Code (Cth) – whether the prosecution failed to properly particularise its case – appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal against the conviction of two co-offenders who had been found guilty of conspiracy with intention to dishonestly obtain a gain from a Commonwealth entity. Two grounds were pressed by the applicants: first, that the verdicts were unreasonable and second, that the prosecution had failed to properly particularise its case. The Court dismissed both grounds of appeal. |
| Uploaded 16 July 2025 | Ovari v Ovari [2025] ACTSC 302PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS – application for substituted service and informal service – whether impracticable to effect personal service – whether alternative reasonably likely to bring document to awareness of defendants – multiple attempts to serve defendants by email and process server. The ACT Supreme Court has released reasons for granting substituted and informal service orders against two defendants in a family estate dispute. |
| Uploaded 16 July 2025 | The Council of the Law Society of the ACT v ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2025] ACTSC 251JUDICIAL REVIEW – Unreasonableness – where orders prevented discharge of statutory function – where tribunal declined to hear an application for non-publication orders – whether tribunal had given evident and intelligible reason for declining to exercise jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has quashed the decision of the Tribunal declining to hear an application for non-publication orders. McCallum CJ held that the Tribunal’s decision not to exercise its jurisdiction was unreasonable, given that it prevented the discharge of the Law Society’s statutory function to investigate complaints and there was no evident or intelligible reason not to exercise jurisdiction. |
| Uploaded 16 July 2025 | DPP v Kay (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 300CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Review – drug and alcohol treatment order – early graduation from treatment and supervision part of treatment order – rehabilitation achieved – objects of treatment order achieved – perseverance – building a quiet life – no sanctions imposed while on treatment order – order amended – good behaviour order. |
| Uploaded 15 July 2025 | Sebo v Canberra Rigging Services Pty Ltd [2025] ACTSC 278PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SOLICITORS – Application by solicitor to withdraw – where defendant does not propose to defend claim – where defendant taking steps to be placed in administration – where final hearing is approximately two weeks away – leave given. |
| Uploaded 15 July 2025 | DPP v Whitall [2025] ACTSC 111 (SCC 79 of 2024; SCC 80 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – forcible confinement – aggravated choke/suffocate/strangle – aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – aggravated property damage – aggravated threat to kill – family violence offending – rolled up charges – offending one single protracted incident – difficult to identify precise acts that occurred and injuries caused – De Simoni – desirability of new offence provision – recidivist family violence offender – sentencing purposes of community protection, deterrence and denunciation have prominence in sentencing exercise – constellation of Bugmy, Henry and Verdins principles – some remorse and insight into offending – whether drug and alcohol treatment order appropriate and suitable – substance abuse substantially contributed to offending – where offender requires rehabilitation beyond substance abuse issues – intensive rehabilitation most effective way to ensure protection of community – offender’s commitment to rehabilitation warrants opportunity for treatment order – treatment order imposed – offender to complete men’s behavioural change program while on treatment order. |
| Uploaded 15 July 2025 | Re the Will of Elizabeth (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 299SUCCESSION – STATUTORY WILL – no testamentary capacity – where applicant has physical and intellectual disability from birth and capacity never existed – whether proposed will reasonably likely if applicant had capacity – whether s 16B information requirements satisfied – whether appropriate for order to be made – whether applicant an appropriate person – whether adequate steps taken to represent all persons relevant to application. |
| Uploaded 15 July 2025 | DPP v Heycox [2025] ACTSC 85 (SCC 322 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – plea of guilty – aggravated robbery committed while in possession of an offensive weapon – weapon used was apparently potentially lethal – robbery committed at the victim's own home – offence subject to significant planning and premeditation – property stolen was of significant value – threat of violence used to commit the offence was of a high level – offence had a very considerable effect on the victim – offender’s prospects for rehabilitation poor – offender on conditional liberty at the time offence was committed – plea of guilty entered at a late stage. |
| Uploaded 14 July 2025 | DPP v Wyatt (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 295CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Review of drug and alcohol treatment order – amendment of treatment order sought to conclude treatment and supervision component early – participant has completed 14 months of treatment and supervision – where participant’s mental health condition interferes with capacity to comply with treatment order – primary need moving forward is securing long-term housing – participant otherwise remains committed to rehabilitation – participant to complete remaining term of sentence by way of good behaviour order – non-graduate completion of treatment order |
| Uploaded 14 July 2025 | DPP v Sims (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 274CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Review of drug and alcohol treatment order – amendment of treatment order sought to conclude treatment and supervision component early – two months remaining under treatment and supervision portion of treatment order – where participant suffering from chronic and ongoing health conditions which interfere with capacity to comply with onerous requirements of treatment order – where participant remains committed to rehabilitation – participant to complete remaining term of sentence by way of good behaviour order – non graduate completion of treatment order |
| Uploaded 14 July 2025 | Re application under the Parentage Act 2004 [2025] ACTSC 294PARENTAGE ORDER – application for transfer of parentage under s 28H of the Parentage Act 2004 (ACT) – where surrogacy arrangement was entered into and child was born prior to the commencement of the Parentage (Surrogacy) Amendment Act 2024 (ACT) – consideration of transitional provisions – parentage order made. |
| Uploaded 11 July 2025 | DPP v Cross (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 291CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pre-trial application – application to waive pre-trial disclosure requirements – expert evidence – late disclosure – whether it is in the interests of justice to waive pre-trial disclosure requirements. |
| Uploaded 11 July 2025 | DPP v Cross (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 292CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – trial by judge alone – verdict – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – act endangering life – unauthorised use of firearm – circumstantial case – reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence – verdicts of not guilty. |
| Uploaded 11 July 2025 | DPP v Cross (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 293 (SCC 330 of 2023; SCC 331 of 2023; SCC 338 of 2023; SCC 247 of 2024).CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Pilot Circle Sentencing List – Elders and Respected Persons Panel – aggravated burglary – drive motor vehicle without consent – theft – affray – contravene section 3LA order – Bugmy principles applied – significant rehabilitative potential – offender demonstrated significant remorse. |
| Uploaded 11 July 2025 | Wang v 1348 Pty Ltd (No 2); Wang v 1313 Pty Ltd; 1348 Pty Ltd v Wang [2025] ACTSC 290PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — COSTS — Whether non-party costs order should be made under Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 1703(2)(e) — whether directors acted unreasonably — complex proceedings — whether appropriate to make fixed sum costs order and determine amount. |
| Uploaded 10 July 2025 | DPP v Marquet [2025] ACTSC 183 (SCC 363 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – act of indecency on person under 16 years – sexual intercourse with person under 16 years – act of indecency without consent – two victims – rolled up offending – youthful offender – offending is serious example of offences – Verdins principles enlivened – where offender demonstrates remorse – moderate risk of sexual reoffending – prospects of rehabilitation – consideration of registration as child sex offender – consideration of hardship to family were fulltime imprisonment imposed – community based period of imprisonment not appropriate given gravity of offending – sentence to reflect denunciation, deterrence and community protection – fulltime imprisonment warranted in circumstances – some reduction for pleas of guilty – sentence partially suspended to promote rehabilitation and community protection. |
| Uploaded 9 July 2025 | DPP v Richards (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 283 (SCC 286 of 2023; SCC 430 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – where offender pleaded guilty to very serious child sexual abuse charges – where offender to be sentenced for both Territory and Commonwealth offences – where offender has no relevant criminal history – where offences involved significant breaches of trust – unfortunately necessary to credit offender for early plea of guilty – offender sentenced to 15 years, nine months and 26 days’ imprisonment. |
| Uploaded 7 July 2025 | DPP v Lock (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 281 (SCC 326 of 2024; SCC 327 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – 80ZH review of drug and alcohol treatment order – non compliance with treatment order – s 80ZE cancellation – discretion to continue order declined – whether to impose or resentence – extent of non-compliance warrants imposition of original sentence – nonparole period to facilitate continued rehabilitation and oversight in community. |
| Uploaded 7 July 2025 | DPP v Shuang [2025] ACTSC 267 (SCC 30 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary of retail premises – theft by joint commission – damage property – youthful offender – offending more than one year apart – delay in charging moderates moral culpability – assistance to authorities – degree of premeditation and planning – aspects of sophistication – consideration of parity – remorse and insight – steps taken in and out of custody towards rehabilitation and self-development – offender did not press imposition of drug and alcohol treatment order in circumstances of progress with rehabilitation – period of imprisonment imposed – strong prospects of rehabilitation favour immediate release – partially suspended sentence with good behaviour order. |
| Uploaded 7 July 2025 | DPP v Greentree (No 3) [2024] ACTSC 344 (SCC 242, 243, 264, 265 of 2022; SCC 251 and 252 of 2023; SCC 136, 137, 202 and 203 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – treatment order previously cancelled pursuant to s 80ZE(1)(d) – imposition or resentence – burglary and theft offences – threat to kill – driving offences – where significant non-compliance with treatment order – consequence of change in maximum penalty – imposition of suspended sentence of imprisonment – further offences committed during and after treatment order – assaulting officer – resisting arrest – attempt to escape custody by fleeing courtroom – possess offensive weapon with intent – syringe – driving offences – serious recidivist offender – community protection paramount consideration – limited prospects of rehabilitation at this time – intensive correction order not appropriate – imprisonment imposed with nonparole period. |
| Uploaded 7 July 2025 | DPP v XA [2024] ACTSC 292 (SCC 245 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – leave for ACT Human Rights Commissioner to intervene refused –aggravated burglary by joint commission – joint commission assault occasioning actual bodily harm – no prior criminal history – low risk of general reoffending – lack of remorse and insight – assessed not suitable for intensive corrections order – non-English speaker – reasonable adjustments to facilitate supervision and community service – suspended sentence imposed – good behaviour order – community service order. The publication restriction has been removed. |
| Uploaded 4 July 2025 | DPP v Shang [2025] ACTSC 277CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE – joint commission – aggravated burglary – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – whether a reasonable doubt exists as to the existence of an agreement between the accused and another person – whether accused and another person trespassed – whether accused acted in self-defence. In a judge alone trial, the Supreme Court has found an accused guilty of one count of aggravated burglary and two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The accused and a co-offender (who had pleaded guilty on a previous occasion) had attended an apartment in Belconnen searching for a person who they believed to be at that location. When they discovered that the person they were searching for was not there, they refused to leave the apartment and violence broke out, as a result of which the two occupants of the apartment sustained a number of injuries, including facial injuries. Issues at trial included the formation of any agreement, whether there was any intention to threaten harm, and whether the accused and co-offender acted in self-defence. The court found beyond reasonable doubt that a spontaneous agreement was impliedly formed when the accused and co-offender jointly refused to leave the apartment and that they intended to threaten harm. Further, neither the conduct of the accused nor that of the co-offender was capable of being viewed as reasonably constituting self-defence. |
| Uploaded 3 July 2025 | DPP v Nurzynski (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 254CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Review of drug and alcohol treatment order – amendment of treatment order sought to conclude treatment and supervision component early – where participant suffering from health conditions which interfere with his ability to comply with the order – where participant has been on treatment order for over one year – commitment to rehabilitation clear – participant to complete the remaining term of imprisonment by way of suspended sentence – – non graduate completion of treatment order – good behaviour conditions to apply. |
| Uploaded 3 July 2025 | DPP v Perry (a pseudonym) [2024] ACTSC 204 (SCC 311 of 2023; SCC 312 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery of vehicle – additional driving offences – whether offence constitutes home invasion without actual entry into home – suitability of drug and alcohol treatment order where offender suffering from significant mental health concerns – prospects of rehabilitation – significant criminal history and previous attempts unsuccessful – whether history of disadvantage enlivens Bugmy principles – whether Verdins principles enlivened where psychosis is drug induced – drug and alcohol treatment order not imposed – sentence of imprisonment imposed. |
| Uploaded 3 July 2025 | DPP v Timalsina [2023] ACTSC 232CRIMINAL LAW -- EVIDENCE -- Unopposed application to adduce evidence of complainant’s “sexual activities” -- s 76 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) -- where evidence constitutes lack of past sexual activity -- whether leave required -- leave required and granted. The publication restriction has been lifted. |
| Uploaded 1 July 2025 | Director of Public Prosecutions v Franklin (No 3) [2023] ACTSC 165EVIDENCE – SUBPOENAS – Public Interest Immunity – Family and sexual violence communications privilege – Application for leave to compel the production of protected confidences – whether threshold test for leave satisfied – where subpoena seeks confidential counselling records of sexual assault counsellor – whether records required for the purpose of obtaining expert evidence – where other asserted forensic purposes speculative The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by an accused person, charged with sexual violence offences, to access the complainant’s counselling records. Court leave was required to issue a subpoena to the counselling service as counselling communications of family or sexual violence complainants are legislatively protected with a qualified immunity. This aims to protects the efficacy of counselling services of traumatised persons. The Court found that the purposes for which the counselling records were sought – namely to obtain an expert report concerning the complainant’s mental conditions, to support a tendency application and to cross-examine the complainant on disclosures made in counselling – did not satisfy the threshold test under the legislation. |
| Uploaded 1 July 2025 | Dhillon v The Canberra Sikh Association Inc [2025] ACTSC 271CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to order filing of statement of claim – where proceedings correctly commenced by originating application – convenience of treating as if started by originating claim – general importance of pleadings – significant factual dispute. |
| Uploaded 30 June 2025 | DPP v Lodding (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 240 (SCC 37 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse without consent – offender found guilty at jury trial – non-consensual digital penetration while victim was intoxicated – offence caused considerable ongoing harm to the victim – no prior criminal history – lack of remorse – period of full-time imprisonment imposed – partial suspension. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for one count of sexual intercourse without consent. The offender was 35 years old, and the victim was 16 years old at the time of the offence. The victim was the offender’s then partner’s daughter. The victim was in a particularly vulnerable position due to her extreme state of intoxication. The offender did not accept responsibility for the present offence and has continued to maintain his innocence after his conviction. The offender has no previous criminal history, stable accommodation, family support and no current substance abuse issues. There was medical evidence presented about the offender’s psychological and physical conditions but the Court found that there was no evidence which suggested that custody would worsen his conditions. The Court found that an Intensive Correction Order was not warranted in this case due to the offender’s failure to accept responsibility for his actions and complete absence of any remorse together with the serious nature of the offence. The offender was sentenced to 2 years and 10 months imprisonment with partial suspension. |
| Uploaded 30 June 2025 | Kuo v Barrow-Yu [2025] ACTSC 259PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FREEZING ORDERS – Ex parte application – where proceedings ongoing in Victorian County Court – where a previously granted freezing order restraining property in favour of other plaintiffs still in force – where the same property now sought to be frozen by present plaintiffs – sufficient prospect that present plaintiffs will obtain favourable order in Victoria enforceable in this court – sufficient risk that defendants, or entities in their control, will secure the discharge of the existing freezing order and dispose of the assets – freezing order made. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JOINDER – Ex parte application – where freezing order made in existing proceedings – where present plaintiffs seek freezing order over the same assets – where existing proceedings solely concerned the enforcement of a judgment debt – where judgment debt since paid – not appropriate to permit joinder. The Supreme Court has granted an ex parte application for freezing orders. The application related to Canberra property already the subject of freezing orders in favour of other plaintiffs, in circumstances where there are ongoing proceedings in Victoria involving the parties. The court found sufficient prospects that the present plaintiffs will obtain a favourable order in the Victorian County Court, and a sufficient risk that the defendants, or entities they control, may secure the discharge of the existing freezing order in the other proceedings and dispose of the assets. |
| Uploaded 27 June 2025 | DPP v Benn (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 266 (SCC 171 of 2023; SCC 172 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse without consent – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – destroy/ damage property – common assault – family violence offences – lack of genuine remorse – involved a breach of trust – had engaged in rehabilitation after being remanded in custody – significant protective factors – limited criminal history – sentence of full time imprisonment – offender to engage in sexual offending programs as directed. |
| Uploaded 27 June 2025 | O’Connell v DPP [2025] ACTCA 20Judgment summaryAPPEAL – Appeal against conviction – verdict by jury – whether verdict unreasonable or unable to be supported by the evidence – whether there was a miscarriage of justice resulting from the prosecutor’s closing address – whether there was a miscarriage of justice resulting from the trial judge’s failure to direct the jury as to the meaning of the term “probability” – whether there was a miscarriage of justice resulting from the trial judge’s failure to remind the jury of other evidence when a recording of the principal prosecution witness’s evidence was replayed – whether jury ought to have entertained a doubt as to the requisite mental element of reckless indifference – role of appellate court. The Court of Appeal has by majority upheld an appeal against the conviction of the appellant by a jury for murdering his partner when she was thrown from the bonnet of his car as he drove away from her house. Taylor J had a reasonable doubt as to whether the appellant had the necessary mens rea of reckless indifference, which required proof beyond reasonable doubt of the probability that his conduct would cause the victim’s death. Her Honour considered this doubt was not one that could be explained by the advantage enjoyed by the jury. Loukas-Karlsson J agreed with Taylor J in upholding the appeal. McCallum CJ dissented, rejecting a ground that the verdict was unreasonable and holding that there was no error or shortcoming in the trial judge’s directions. McCallum CJ noted that the central issue in the trial was whether the appellant drove off with the victim on the bonnet. Her Honour held that, it having been open to the jury to find that she was, it was not for the Court of Appeal to consider a speculative hypothesis as to the appellant’s conduct and state of mind that was not raised at trial or in the appeal. |
| Uploaded 27 June 2025 | The Owners - Units Plan No 4421 v Geocon Constructors (ACT) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 206PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – Applications by different defendants to strike out parts of statement of claim – where some pleadings raise difficult questions of statutory interpretation – where some pleadings provide insufficient details about the case to be met – some pleadings struck out with leave to replead PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Interlocutory applications – where applicants successful on some grounds but unsuccessful on others – inappropriate to encourage expectation that, if strike out applications are only partly successful, costs will be awarded – parties encouraged to engage in pragmatic compromise – no order as to costs STATUTES – INTERPRETATION – Drafting error – previous legislation copied and pasted – change in sub section numbering not accommodated – error not identified or corrected during 21 years of operation – necessary to read internal cross reference as if it were to the correct sub section The Supreme Court has ruled on applications by certain defendants to strike out parts of the plaintiff’s pleadings in its claim against persons or entities involved in the Gungahlin “Infinity” development. The applications were successful in part, with the relevant pleadings struck out with leave to replead. As the applications were only partially successful, the court noted that it would be inappropriate to award costs to the defendants for the applications; rather, parties should be encouraged to engage in pragmatic compromise. In deciding the matter, the court observed that a drafting error had occurred when certain legislative provisions were renumbered, finding it necessary to read an internal cross‑reference as if it were to the correct sub‑section. |
| Uploaded 27 June 2025 | TS v DT [2025] ACTSC 215The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against a family violence order (FVO) imposed by the ACT Magistrates Court. The court found that the first ground of appeal was doomed to fail by reason of a Court of Appeal judgment binding on the parties. The second ground of appeal was doomed to fail as the order appealed from had expired. On those bases, the appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. |
| Uploaded 25 June 2025 | In the matter of the adoption of EP [2025] ACTSC 264ADOPTION – DISPENSATION WITH CONSENT – Application to dispense with requirement for consent of birth mother to adoption of young child by prospective adoptive parents –- whether relevant person’s identity can be established – whether dispensation necessary in the best interests of the young person – where child has been residing with the prospective adoptive parents for extended period – where no notice of opposition filed – dispensation order made. |
| Uploaded 25 June 2025 | Alananzeh v Zgool Form Pty Ltd [2025] ACTCA 19Judgment summaryTORT – NEGLIGENCE – EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES – Appeal on basis that primary judge erred in the manner that she reduced damages for vicissitudes – primary judge reduced whole award of damages by 25 percent on account of vicissitudes rather than only reducing component of damages relating to future economic loss – reduction for vicissitudes cannot apply to a past loss – respondents conceded error – appeal allowed TORT – NEGLIGENCE – EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES – Appeal on ground that primary judge erred when discounting buffer for future economic loss – buffer awarded on basis that appellant will obtain funds to retrain, and have money to live on while retraining, for a period of two years – where appellant had pre-existing asymptomatic medical condition – where primary judge dealt with possibility of appellant becoming symptomatic by increasing vicissitudes discount – no clear delineation between cases where appropriate to award a buffer and those where appropriate to conduct a numerical calculation – no error in basing buffer for future economic loss upon numerical considerations that informed calculation of past economic loss – no error in reducing buffer to take into account vicissitudes TORT – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – Cross appeal by second respondent as to existence and scope of duty of care – where appellant a formwork worker, first respondent a formwork subcontractor employing the appellant, second respondent the formwork contractor and third respondent the default insurer – where primary judge found that second respondent assumed a duty of safety for its subcontractors pertaining to conditions of the site where those subcontractors were being directed to work – no error disclosed in primary judge’s reasoning process The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal on the basis that the primary judge erred in the manner in which she reduced damages because of vicissitudes. The award of damages ought to only have been reduced in relation to future economic loss rather than all heads of damages. The award of damages was consequently increased from $243,900 to $300,200. A cross-appeal was filed by the second respondent in relation to the existence and scope of the duty of care it owed, the findings in relation to breach of that duty and contributory negligence. The cross-appeal was dismissed. |
| Uploaded 25 June 2025 | DPP v Eichmann (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 258 (SCC 338 of 2022; SCC 339 of 2022; SCC 241 of 2023; SCC 148 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and punishment – Sentence – treatment order previously cancelled pursuant to s 80ZE – imposition or resentence – consideration of compliance with drug and alcohol treatment order – further offending while on treatment order – theft by way of joint commission – suspended sentence not appropriate – deterrent effect of parole period necessary –offender intends to move back to Queensland upon release to continue rehabilitation – family support and prosocial environment available – early release on parole with recommendation to facilitate continued rehabilitation in Queensland – lengthy period of supervision in the community. |
| Uploaded 25 June 2025 | Shearman v Dosen Holdings [2025] ACTSC 265APPEAL – CIVIL LAW – Contracts – Consumer law – Judgment – appeal from a decision of a Magistrate – claims for damages – misleading and deceptive conduct – common property of the complex affected by defects – appeal upheld The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal from the Magistrates Court. This appeal was brought by seven appellants who purchased residential units from Dosen Holdings. The appellants submitted that the Magistrate erred in dismissing their claims for misleading or deceptive conduct against Dosen and its two directors. It was held that the Magistrate should have found that the warranties made by or on behalf of Dosen, which ultimately were present in the form of a clause in the contract, materially contributed to the appellants entering into their contracts and consequently suffering loss and damage. Further, the Court also found that the directors were also involved in the misleading or deceptive conduct of Dosen given the small nature of the company and that the directors were also the builders of the units. The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Magistrate were varied. |
| Uploaded 23 June 2025 | DPP v Wilson (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTCA 4APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT – s 97A of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – tendency evidence – assessment of significant probative value – where primary judge found exceptional circumstances under s 97A(5) – whether the standard of review under s 97A(4) is House v The King or correctness. The Court of Appeal has granted leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of a justice of the Supreme Court in relation to the admissibility of tendency evidence in proceedings involving child sexual offences under s 97A of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). The issues which have been traversed in the judgment include the primary judge’s assessment of whether the evidence had significant probative value, and whether there were exceptional circumstances established in relation to certain matters the primary judge considered in making her assessment of significant probative value. The judgment has also noted a dispute as to whether s 97A(4) imports a true discretion or not, which has significance for the standard of review on appeal to be applied. The Court of Appeal is to determine this appeal substantively at a later date. |
| Uploaded 23 June 2025 | DPP v Fielding (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 257CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –– unanimity direction – route to criminal responsibility – joint commission – knowingly concerned – extensions of criminal responsibility – ss 45 and 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). |
| Uploaded 23 June 2025 | DPP v Fielding [2025] ACTSC 252CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – indictment – whether indictment is defective – joint commission – knowingly concerned – extensions of criminal responsibility – ss 45 and 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). |
|
Uploaded 20 June 2025 | Dunn v The State of New South Wales [2025] ACTSC 260JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CROSS-VESTING – application to transfer proceedings to NSW Supreme Court – plaintiff domiciled in Queensland – prospective lay and expert witnesses located in NSW and Queensland – no defence yet filed – facts of application neutral as to favourability of forum – transfer not in interests of justice – application dismissed |
|
Uploaded 19 June 2025 | DPP v Franklin (No 5) [2024] ACTSC 196CRIMINAL LAW – Application to adduce prior evidence of family violence in respect of family violence and sexual violence offending – s 74A of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) – consideration of relationship and context evidence – application granted. The publication restriction has been removed. |
|
Uploaded 19 June 2025 | DPP v Franklin (No 4) [2024] ACTSC 35CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Tendency evidence – application to admit tendency evidence of two incidents involving sexual assaults – cross-admissibility of evidence of charged incidents – where contemporaneous evidence of first incident varied significantly from later evidence – requirement to take evidence at its highest – evidence cross-admissible as tendency evidence. The publication restriction has been removed. |
|
Uploaded 19 June 2025 | DPP v Franklin (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 452CRIMINAL LAW – application for disclosure of protected confidences – evidence that complainant previously made false allegations of sexual assault – evidence of complainant’s mental health and consumption of alcohol at time of previous alleged false complaint – disclosure necessary for accused to have a fair trial – leave granted to disclose documents. The publication restriction has been removed. |
|
Uploaded 19 June 2025 | DPP v Franklin (No 1) [2023] ACTSC 451CRIMINAL LAW – application for disclosure of protected confidences – evidence that complainant had previously made false allegations of sexual assault – evidence of complainant’s mental health and consumption of alcohol at time of previous alleged false complaint – subpoena limited to those matters. The publication restriction has been removed. |
|
Uploaded 19 June 2025 | R v Noy [2025] ACTSC 93 (SCC 333 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – using a carriage service to procure a child for sexual activity – using a carriage service for child abuse material – where victim aged 13 and offender aged 18 years – nature of offending inherently serious – communications quickly descended into highly sexualised interaction – specific deterrence an important consideration – real and significant harm caused – [redacted] – consideration of offender’s youth – solid prospects of rehabilitation – reduction in sentence where plea of guilty entered at first opportunity – period of imprisonment imposed – combination of factors may demonstrate that the circumstances of the case are exceptional – exceptional circumstances warrant immediate release on recognizance release order |
|
Uploaded 19 June 2025 | In the matter of the adoption of JB [2025] ACTSC 253ADOPTION – DISPENSATION WITH CONSENT – Application to dispense with requirement for consent of biological mother to adoption of young child by prospective adoptive parents – whether dispensation necessary given previous consent – whether relevant person’s identity can be established – whether dispensation necessary in the best interests of the young person – where child has been residing with the prospective adoptive parents for more than 2 years – where no notice of opposition filed – dispensation order not required – previous consent treated as effective. |
|
Uploaded 18 June 2025 | In the Estate of Margaret Mary Tassie [2025] ACTSC 255SUCCESSION – WILLS, PROBATE & ADMINISTRATION – application for rectification of a will – where testator intended to appoint a director of law firm as executor – uncertainty as to person or object – intention of testator clear – statutory discretion to rectify exercised. |
|
Uploaded 18 June 2025 | DPP v Wilson (a pseudonym) (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 229CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – jury trial – acts of indecency – historical allegations – whether the date range identified in the indictment is a material particular – consideration of impact of tendency evidence. |
|
Uploaded 18 June 2025 | DPP v Wilson (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 286CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pre-trial application – amendment of date range on the indictment – accused no longer an adult for the duration of the date range – application to revisit the tendency ruling – application to recall the complainant – two child complainants – consideration of relevance and probative value – consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist – indictment severed. The publication restriction has been lifted. |
|
Uploaded 18 June 2025 | DPP v Eren [2025] ACTSC 199EVIDENCE – EXPERT EVIDENCE – Whether report of memory psychology academic admissible – where report concludes complainant substituted her memory of presently charged events with memory of past sexual assaults – academic literature relied on not comparable to present circumstances – evidence does not support report’s conclusions – report’s probative value substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to prosecution EVIDENCE – PRIOR SEXUAL HISTORY – Where limited references suggest complainant had previously been sexually assaulted – purpose of 2003 evidence reforms to make it harder to adduce such evidence – not established that the evidence would have substantial relevance to a fact in issue or would substantially impair confidence in the reliability of the complainant’s evidence EVIDENCE – PRIOR SEXUAL HISTORY – Voir dire – where accused seeks to adduce evidence of prior sexual history – where evidence is limited – whether such a course is a ‘fishing expedition’ – not appropriate to cross-examine complainant on voir dire to support application to adduce that evidence before the jury – such a course contrary to legislative intention The Supreme Court has ruled that a report prepared by Professor Goodman-Delahunty is inadmissible in the trial of the accused. Her report concluded that the complainant substituted her memory of the presently charged events with memory of past sexual assaults. The court found that her report relied on literature not comparable to the circumstances in question, that the evidence did not support her report’s conclusions, and that the report’s probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to the prosecution. The court also refused to permit a voir dire to explore limited references that the complainant had been previously sexually assaulted, finding such a course to be contrary to legislative reforms. |
|
Uploaded 17 June 2025 | DPP v George [2024] ACTSC 37 (SCC 229 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – arson – damaging property – offending while in lawful custody – riot – offender had a background of profound disadvantage – history of illicit substance use – extensive criminal history including other offences committed in custody – limited remorse – some prospects of rehabilitation – delay in prosecution – no explanation for delay – existing sentence – sentence of imprisonment imposed The publication restriction has now been lifted. |
|
Uploaded 17 June 2025 | DPP v Black (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 219 (SCC 240 of 2023; SCC 179 of 2024; SCC 180 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – arson – property damage – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – assault frontline community service provider – riot – guilty plea – offences committed in custody – significant delay in prosecution – consideration of parity - disadvantaged childhood and upbringing – application of Bugmy principles. |
|
Uploaded 16 June 2025 | DPP v Westhorp [2024] ACTSC 152CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Tendency Evidence – Pre-trial application – section 97A Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – presumption that evidence has significant probative value – charged and uncharged conduct The publication restriction has been lifted. |
|
Uploaded 16 June 2025 | DPP v Collier [2024] ACTSC 340 (SCC 249 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence –– arson – scheduled offence of damage property – offending committed while in lawful custody – riot – moderate criminal history including a previous offence committed in custody – no further reoffending – excellent prospects of rehabilitation – where offender has been in custody for a lengthy period – egregious delay in prosecution – no explanation for delay – existing sentence – partially suspended sentence imposed The publication restriction has been lifted. |
|
Uploaded 16 June 2025 | R v Winters (No 2); DPP v Winters [2024] ACTSC 356 (SCC 272 of 2021; SCC 160 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Breach – breach of good behaviour order by fresh offending – sentenced for new offending in Magistrates Court – remainder of suspended sentence imposed CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – arson – property damage – guilty plea – offences committed in custody – significant delay in prosecution – consideration of parity – disadvantaged childhood and upbringing – application of Bugmy – some prospects of rehabilitation – sentence of full-time imprisonment imposed The publication restriction has been lifted. |
|
Uploaded 16 June 2025 | DPP v Lucas (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 248CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Review – Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order – graduation – order confirmed – participant to continue under good behaviour order – setbacks and challenges – non-linear nature of rehabilitation – commitment to sobriety and treatment order – support network – a dog named Jack – literacy goals – objects of treatment order achieved. The Supreme Court has graduated a participant from the treatment and supervision part of his drug and alcohol treatment order, moving him to the good behaviour portion of the order. The Court commended the participant for his growth and commitment to his sobriety journey. The Court commended the participant for his honesty and accountability while on the treatment order, and for his growth as a person. The participant will now be subject to a good behaviour order for a period of some 2 years. |
|
Uploaded 13 June 2025 | DPP v Adams [2025] ACTSC 167 (SCC 265 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – persistent sexual abuse of a child – aggravated intentional and unlawful choke, rendering unconscious – aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – consideration of features which inform objective seriousness of persistent sexual abuse of child offence – where victim aged between 14 and 15 and offender aged between 33 and 34 years during offending – where victim fell pregnant twice as a result of the offending – where victim vulnerable and exploited by offender – sexual and emotional manipulation – offending extremely serious conduct – current sentencing practice – consideration of authorities from other jurisdictions – offender’s criminal history such that no leniency can be afforded – Bugmy principles enlivened – guarded prospects of rehabilitation – moderate reduction in sentence for guilty plea – period of imprisonment imposed – lengthy period of supervision in community. |
|
Uploaded 13 June 2025 | Gamage v Snelleksz [2025] ACTSC 239APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal from Magistrates Court – appeal against conviction – correctness standard – distribute intimate image – threaten to distribute intimate image – threat to kill – stalking – where intimate images were sent from the complainant’s email address – where complainant denied sending the intimate images – whether the Magistrate erred in finding that the complainant was a witness of truth – whether complainant’s evidence was contradicted by expert digital forensic evidence – adequacy of reasons – appeal dismissed. |
|
Uploaded 13 June 2025 | DPP v Ivanovski [2025] ACTSC 237 (SCC 48 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse without consent – non-consensual removal of condom during paid sexual service – ‘stealthing’ – intentional misrepresentation about use of condom negates consent – whether removal of condom premeditated – assessed at lower part of mid-range of objective seriousness – no prior criminal history – good work history – where offender continues to deny offending – no evidence to suggest that any underlying mental health condition affected offender’s ability to understand terms of victim’s agreement to sexual activity – period of full-time imprisonment imposed – partial suspension. The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a total term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months for an offence of sexual intercourse without consent. The offender engaged the victim to provide sexual services at a commercial brothel, and during the sexual activity, removed the condom (known as ‘stealthing’) without the victim’s knowledge, which negated the victim’s consent. The sentence will be suspended after 12 months on the condition that the offender comply with good behaviour obligations for the remainder of the total sentence. |
|
Uploaded 13 June 2025 | Pastrello v Saeedi [2025] ACTCA 18APPEAL – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to expedite hearing of appeal – interests of justice – where expediting appeal would displace hearing of already allocated appeal – application dismissed |
|
Uploaded 13 June 2025 | DPP v Lock (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 231 (SCC 117 of 2023; SCC 118 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – 32 counts – incest with a child under 10 – act of indecency with a child under 10 – incest with a child under 16 – act of indecency with a child under 16 – unlawful confinement – sexual assault in the third degree – offender older sibling of both victims – where offender subjected sisters to persistent sexual abuse for years –degrading and violent offending – where offender a young person for majority of offending – uncharged conduct occurring before offender’s 14th birthday – impact of autism spectrum disorder – s 34AA of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 – observations regarding table of proposed sentences provided by prosecution – need for “robust articulation” of sentences proposed – recommendation for aggregate sentencing to be enacted in the ACT – overall term of imprisonment of 16 and a half years to be suspended after 10 years’ imprisonment |
|
Uploaded 13 June 2025 | Higgins v Pretorius (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 243CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – application for special costs order – where offer of compromise made by plaintiff and not accepted – where verdict sum was no less favourable to the plaintiff than offer of compromise – whether award for costs should be made otherwise than in accordance with r 1010(2)(a) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). |
|
Uploaded 12 June 2025 | Higgins v Pretorius (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 242CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to stay operation of judgment pending resolution of the appeal – where applicant uninsured – applicant gave evidence that she cannot presently pay judgment sum – where applicant has not yet obtained financial advice about possible mechanisms to pay judgment sum – whether real risk of prejudice to applicant, were stay not granted – whether appeal raises serious issue for determination – parties provided proposed conditions of stay – conditions of stay ensure applicant cannot alter her financial position to the respondent’s detriment – consideration of balance of convenience between parties – stay granted |
|
Uploaded 12 June 2025 | R v Foster (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 241 (SCC 291 of 2020; SCC 292 of 2020; SCC 64 of 2022; SCC 85 of 2022)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary – theft – dishonestly obtain property by deception – offending occurred in 2020 – significant delay in finalisation of proceedings – offender has graduated and completed drug and alcohol treatment order in interim – significance of totality principle in sentencing exercise – fully suspended sentence imposed. |
|
Uploaded 12 June 2025 | DPP v TI (a pseudonym) [2024] ACTSC 391 (SCC 205 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary – attempted arson – offender seeks drug and alcohol treatment order – whether treatment order capable of addressing attitudinal factors and risk to community safety – treatment order not appropriate or suitable – term of imprisonment with nonparole period imposed. |
|
Uploaded 11 June 2025 | Decision Restricted [2025] ACTSC 238CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – pre-trial application – tendency evidence – evidence of sexual activity – ss 97 and 101 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – s 76 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) As the judgment is restricted, it is not publicly available. Any enquires about this decision should be directed to Loukas-Karlsson J’s chambers. Associate.Loukas-KarlssonJ@courts.act.gov.au |
|
Uploaded 6 June 2025 | WNA Construction Pty Ltd v Canberra Building and Maintenance Pty Ltd [2025] ACTCA 17Judgment SummaryCIVIL LAW – APPEAL – payment claim under Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2009 (ACT) – whether payment claim was “given” to the appellant – where payment claim was sent to a new email address – where new email address had same domain name as previously used email addresses – where no evidence was adduced as to the email address not being a valid email address in circumstances where it would have been easy to do so – Jones v Dunkel inference made – whether payment claim was sufficiently specific – where specificity requirement is not overly demanding – where there was reasonable identification of the work that was performed – appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal concerning the non-payment of a payment claim said to have been issued under the Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2009 (ACT). In dismissing the appeal, the Court was satisfied that the respondent had “given” a valid payment claim to the appellant within the meaning of the Act, and that the payment claim was sufficiently specific to satisfy the requirements of the Act. |
|
Uploaded 6 June 2025 | Molonglo Construction Group v Mehta [2025] ACTSC 235CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – removal of proceedings to Supreme Court – application for proceedings to be consolidated or heard together – whether appropriate matters to consolidate. |
|
Uploaded 6 June 2025 | DPP v Hiscox (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 230 (SCC 349 of 2024; SCC 350 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – common assault – reckless threat to kill – contravene s 3LA order by refusing to provide phone password – burglary of pound motivated by return of offender’s dog – assaults and threat against housemate – reduction in moral culpability with reference to offender’s background – drug and alcohol treatment order imposed. |
|
Uploaded 6 June 2025 | DPP v Figura (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 233 (SCC 177 of 2024, SCC 178 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – review – s 80ZE cancellation of drug and alcohol treatment order – suitable residential rehabilitation program not available – consideration of compliance with treatment order – consequences of noncompliance with a treatment order – imposition of sentence of imprisonment that was suspended – rehabilitation – engagement in Behind The Wheel course – nonparole period set. |
|
Uploaded 5 June 2025 | QC v The Scout Association of Australia New South Wales Branch [2025] ACTSC 228CIVIL LAW – pleadings – personal injury – application to strike out – historical sexual abuse – whether pleadings disclosed material facts sufficient for cause of action – distinction between particulars and material facts – nature of duty pleaded – risk of harm – foreseeability of harm – whether risk of harm was present or foreseeable at time of alleged abuse. The Supreme Court has struck out a statement of claim alleging historical sexual assaults for failing to plead material facts to support the allegation that the risk was foreseeable. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries arising from alleged sexual assaults by a Scout Leader. The plaintiff originally pleaded that the defendants owed him a non-delegable duty of care, but after an inquiry from the Court about the nature of the duty pleaded and apparent hurdle of alleging a non-delegable duty to protect him from the criminal act of another, the plaintiff simply deleted “non-delegable” from the pleading, confining his claim to direct negligence. The Court accepted that the plaintiff did not plead the material facts required to support the allegation that the risk was foreseeable and struck out the statement of claim with leave to replead. |
|
Uploaded 4 June 2025 | DPP v Saunders [2025] ACTSC 160 (SCC 321 of 2024, SCC 322 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary – theft – fraud – dealing with proceeds of crime – offending driven by survival – previous noncompliance with court orders not necessarily indicative of behaviour on drug and alcohol treatment order – prospects of rehabilitation – primacy of long-term community protection in sentencing exercise – drug and alcohol treatment order imposed |
Uploaded | DPP v Majok [2024] ACTSC 342 (SCC 254 of 2023; SCC 215 of 2024; SCC 216 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – joint commission – aggravated burglary – aggravated robbery –theft – damaging property – some understanding of the negative impacts of offending – vulnerable state at time of the offending – intoxication by alcohol and drugs at the time of the offences does not reduce moral culpability |
Uploaded | DPP v Rigo [2025] ACTSC 220 (SCC 71 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – acts of indecency without consent – historical sex offences – pervasive impact on victim’s life – ‘otherwise’ good character of offender – hardship to family by incarceration – health of offender – burden by imprisonment – community based sentence order not reflective of gravity of offending – partially suspended sentence appropriate |
Uploaded | DPP v Lo [2025] ACTSC 218 (SCC 119 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm – Intensive Corrections Order – consideration of rehabilitation – consideration of application of Bugmy and Verdins principles The ACTSC has sentenced an offender for an offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The offender was involved in an altercation with a coworker at a restaurant. There was an issue of excessive self-defence. The offender received a sentence of 15 months imprisonment, to be served by way of Intensive Corrections Order. |
Uploaded | DPP v Swain (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 209 (SCC 313 of 2024; SCC 314 of 2024; SCC 318 of 2024; SCC 319 of 2024; SCC 33 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Pilot Circle Sentencing List – Elders and Respected Persons Panel – child offender – young person – aggravated robbery – drive motor vehicle without consent – drive motor vehicle near police – aggravated dangerous driving – profound childhood disadvantage – Bugmy principles applied – Verdins principles applied – assessment of maturity – conditional liberty – risk of institutionalisation – police conduct – extra-curial punishment – consideration of prospects of rehabilitation |
Uploaded | DPP v Fuller [2024] ACTSC 417 (SCC 249 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – drive motor vehicle without consent – offender expresses depth of remorse and insight – consideration of reparation order – focus on rehabilitation – legislative curiosity as to when treatment order imposed – drug and alcohol treatment order imposed |
Uploaded | McBride v The King [2025] ACTCA 16Judgment SummaryAPPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – unlawfully communicate naval, military or air force information other than in the course of the appellant’s “official duty” contrary to s 73A(1) of the Defence Act 1903 (Cth) – publish confidential information other than in the course of the appellant’s “duty” contrary to s 70(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – theft – where the appellant was a member of the Australian Defence Force at the time of the offending – where the appellant pleaded guilty – whether a miscarriage of justice arose because the appellant’s guilty pleas were entered in consequence of a wrong decision of law – whether by way of the appellant’s oath of enlistment the appellant’s “duty” or “official duty” extended to acting in the “public interest”, even where in contravention of a lawful general order – whether the scope of the appellant’s duty may be defined by a lawful general order – no wrong decision of law – no miscarriage of justice – conviction appeal dismissed APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Crime and Punishment – Sentence – appeal against sentence – whether primary judge erred in failing to take into account the appellant’s motivation to remedy a perceived injustice when assessing the objective seriousness of the offending – where concern was with perceived over-investigation of alleged war crimes – whether appellant honestly believed offending conduct to be lawful – contribution of mental health condition to offending – Verdins principles considered – harm to the community – sufficient consideration of intensive correction order assessment report –sentence appeal dismissed The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal against conviction for the theft, and unlawful communication and publication of confidential naval, military or air force information. The appellant was a member of the Australian Defence Force at the time of the offending. The appellant contended that “official duty” in the offence provisions refers to the duty arising from the oath taken on enlistment, which included a promise to “well and truly serve Our Sovereign” and this should be understood as a duty to advance the Australian public interest. The primary judge had refused to give this direction to the jury, and the appellant entered guilty pleas as a consequence. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that no error of law arose, and therefore dismissed the appeal. The appellant also advanced six grounds of appeal with respect to his sentence, all of which were dismissed. |
Uploaded | Senatore v Andriolo (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 205PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Where offer of compromise made by defendant, not accepted and judgment no less favourable to defendant – whether offer of compromise involved a genuine offer of compromise The Supreme Court has dismissed an application for a different costs order than the orders made following the hearing of the matter by Crowe AJ. The defendant has made an offer of compromise to the plaintiff, offering to pay $20,000 for the proceedings to be discontinued against them. The plaintiffs did not respond and the defendant sought a higher costs order than made by Crowe AJ. The Court dismissed the defendant’s application for a higher costs order, finding that the offer to pay $20,000 to settle the proceedings when the defendants faced a minimum liability of $200,000 did not entail a genuine element of compromise. Rather, the offer was made in order to trigger the penalty of a higher costs order. |
Uploaded | DPP v Hojlund [2024] ACTSC 88CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pre-trial application – application to adduce tendency evidence – where application not opposed – appropriateness of leaving directions to the jury for the determination of the trial judge CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pre-trial application – application to appoint witness intermediary – whether the complainant has a communication difficulty – young age of the complainant – circumstances of the offending – purpose of an intermediary – ameliorative effect of the legislation – requirement for the court to be comfortably satisfied of the existence of a communication difficulty The Supreme Court has allowed two prosecution pre-trial applications. The first in relation to an application to adduce tendency evidence which was not opposed by defence counsel however, the Court determined that the directions to be given to the jury would be a matter for the trial judge. The second application was for the appointment of a witness intermediary for the complainant who was just over 18 years old at the time of the offending and provided medical evidence that she would likely dissociate while giving her evidence. The Court held that it was comfortably satisfied that the complainant had a communication difficulty and considering the broad ameliorative purpose of the legislation, appointed an intermediary. |
Uploaded | Pretorius v Higgins [2025] ACTSC 216CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to set aside or permanently stay proceedings – where defendant to previous personal injury proceedings has brought claim alleging personal injury arising from same factual circumstances – non-compliance with Pt 5.2 of Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) – whether defendant waived compliance – whether proceedings abuse of process – Anshun estoppel – whether plaintiff estopped from bringing further proceedings – claims sought to be raised previously litigated and determined – continuance of claim would represent abuse of process |
Uploaded | Pavey-Dray v Weomany Pty Ltd trading as Zaab Braddon (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 217CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – special costs order sought by Second to Sixth Defendants (Third Parties) against First Defendant – where Third Parties joined in proceedings by Third Party Notice – verdict entered for Third Parties against First Defendant – where misrepresentations made by First Defendant likely led to joining of Third Parties in the proceeding – two offers of compromise not accepted by First Defendant – unreasonable for First Defendant not to have accepted second offer of compromise where her evidence given the previous day absolved Third Parties of liability |
Uploaded | Ware v DPP [2025] ACTCA 15CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – adequacy of primary judge’s directions to jury on consent – where no objection to directions at trial – reasonableness of an accused person’s belief as to consent – use of hypothetical example in directions to jury – application for leave to appeal under r 5531 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) is refused – appeal dismissed |
Uploaded | DPP v Weldon (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 133CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL – Trial by judge alone – aggravated burglary – theft by way of joint commission – consideration of coincidence evidence – consideration of object identification evidence – where CCTV footage of varying quality – where evidence consists of strands in a cable – verdict of guilty on all counts |
Uploaded | DPP v Hojlund (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 211 (SCC 202 of 2023; SCC 203 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse without consent – intimate observations or capture visual data – where offender drugged and sexually assaulted two unconscious victims on separate occasions – offender filmed offending conduct – history of homelessness, significant drug use and mental health challenges – separate harm to each victim recognised – terms of imprisonment imposed The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for charges of sexual intercourse without consent and intimate observations or capture visual data. The Court imposed a term of imprisonment of nine years, three months and 11 days with a non-parole period of six years. |
Uploaded | Francis (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth (No 3) [2023] ACTSC 382CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUBPOENAS – Application for access to documents that contain protected confidences – documents produced in response to subpoena – no material of significance where public interest in preserving the confidentiality of protected confidences would tend against disclosure – documents will be of significance in proper assessment of plaintiff’s claim – access granted |
Uploaded | Francis (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 276CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUBPOENAS – Application for access to documents that contain protected confidences – documents produced in response to subpoenas – consideration of s 79H Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) – plaintiff does not oppose disclosure – public interest in disclosure outweighs public interest in preserving the confidentiality of the protected confidences – access granted CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUBPOENAS – Application for leave to issue subpoena for production of documents that contain protected confidences – documents sought fall within the scope of the defendant’s application in proceeding – legitimate forensic purpose in seeking leave – leave granted |
Uploaded | DPP v McColl [2025] ACTSC 214 (SCC 70 of 2023; SCC 124 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – damage property – aggravated dangerous driving – offending while on drug and alcohol treatment order – no legislated consequence – egregious breach of conditional liberty – aggravating factor on sentence – time in custody – reform from substance dependency – rehabilitation achieved – promotion of rehabilitation in sentencing exercise – suspended term of imprisonment imposed |
Uploaded | DPP v Jember (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 213 (SCC 74 of 2024; SCC 75 of 2024; SCC 108 of 2024; SCC 109 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – s 80ZE cancellation of a drug and alcohol treatment order – unlikely to comply with a condition of a treatment order – likelihood of achieving objects of order – imposition or resentence – low level of compliance with treatment order – aid and abet burglary – drug trafficking – driving while disqualified – sentence of imprisonment imposed – nonparole period imposed |
Uploaded | Francis (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth of Australia (No 5) [2024] ACTSC 195CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where proceedings resolved on terms requiring the Commonwealth to pay disputed portion of judgment sum into court and balance to plaintiff – where Commonwealth later formed the view that the amount agreed to be paid into court was inadequate to disputed sum consent orders – where defendant seeks a partial stay of consent order – where defendant has discharged its liability under the consent judgment but is inadequate to cover newly calculated liability – where defendant was under an obligation pay interest on the judgment debt – interpretation of consent orders |
Uploaded | Francis (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth (No 4) [2024] ACTSC 145CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where consent orders filed following settlement of claim contemplate determination of separate question by the court – where defendant disputes the formulation of the separate question – question concerning proper interpretation of s 30K of the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth) – desirability of formulating the separate question in the language of the statute |
Uploaded | DPP v Shasha [2024] ACTSC 213EVIDENCE LAW – TENDENCY EVIDENCE – Criminal proceedings – alleged tendency of accused to have a sexual interest in the complainant (a child) and to act upon that interest – single complainant – where prosecution relied on “otherwise benign” acts to support charge of grooming – whether benign acts capable of proving tendency to have sexual interest in the complainant – consideration of nature of tendency reasoning – consideration of appropriate form of rulings to be sought in tendency applications |
Uploaded | Decision Restricted 2025] ACTSC 172CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – act of indecency – sexual intercourse without consent – young person – multiple victims – lack of remorse – moral culpability of young person committing sexual offence – delay and rehabilitation – can an offender be convicted without further punishment – where not appropriate to impose punishment above conviction – exclusion from child sex offender register As the judgment is restricted, it is not publicly available. Any enquires about this decision should be directed to Berman AJ’s chambers. associate.actingj@courts.act.gov.au |
Uploaded | DPP v Jones (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 140 (SCC 225 of 2023; SCC 226 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse with person under 16 years – act of indecency – threat to kill – possess offensive weapon with intent – offending aggravated by family violence – offender a young person at time of offending – Bugmy, Verdins and Henry principles enlivened – where young person demonstrated progress and growth whilst in custody – terms of imprisonment imposed – benefit of youth detention custodial environment – partially suspended sentence – inappropriate to place young person on sex offender list The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a total term of imprisonment of 6 years and 9 months for offences of aggravated sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years, aggravated act of indecency on a person under 16 years, and aggravated threat to kill. The Court considered the seriousness of the offences, impact on the victim, and the subjective circumstances of the offender, who was aged 17 years at the time of the offending, in assessing the sentence to be imposed. The Court gave weight to the young person’s reduced moral culpability, with reference to their childhood of disadvantage and neglect, early exposure to substances and substance abuse, and cognitive and developmental difficulties. Further, the Court considered the sentencing purposes provided in chapter 8 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) regarding young offenders. The sentence is to be suspended after 3 years. |
Uploaded | DPP v Brown (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 226CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Witness intermediaries – directions for the conduct of examination of witness prophylactic rather than remedial – recommendations adopted notwithstanding submissions by counsel for the accused |
Uploaded | House v ACT (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 207HUMAN RIGHTS – EXTENSION OF TIME – Previous dismissal of application for extension of time because of inadequate pleadings – where pleadings amended to address inadequacies – where first defendant now does not oppose an extension of time – extension of time in general terms granted in the circumstances The Supreme Court has granted an extension of time in general terms to the plaintiff pursuant to s 40C of the Human Rights Act. There was a dismissal of a previous application due to inadequate pleadings. The pleadings were then amended to address those inadequacies, a new application filed, and the first defendant did not oppose the new application. |
Uploaded | DPP v Baudinette (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 208CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Review – rehabilitation achieved – object of order achieved –grandson – horticulture – graduation from treatment and supervision part of treatment order – order confirmed The Supreme Court has graduated a participant from the treatment and supervision part of his drug and alcohol treatment order, moving him to the good behaviour portion of the order. The Court commended the participant for his growth, having shown accountability and commitment to changing the trajectory of his life. The Court further reflected on remarkable achievement of the participant to achieve and maintain sobriety, noting the early age he commenced using substances, breaking the cycle of his past. The participant will now be subject to a good behaviour order for a period of some 3 months. |
Uploaded | DPP v Baker (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 196 (SCC 261 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offender pleaded guilty to two counts of culpable driving causing death – where offender is 15 years old, 14 at time of offending – consideration of ss 64(2) and 133G of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act – consideration of disadvantaged background and prospects of rehabilitation against denunciation, recognition of harm done to victims and general deterrence – sentenced to five years and three months’ imprisonment, to be suspended after two years The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to five years and three months’ imprisonment, to be suspended after two years. The offender drove culpably causing the death of two victims. He is 15 years old and was 14 at the time of the offending. Consideration was given by the court to ss 64(2), 133G of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, the offender’s disadvantaged background and rehabilitation prospects as well as recognition of harm to victims and general deterrence. |
Uploaded | DPP v Lock [2025] ACTSC 204 (SCC 326 of 2024; SCC 327 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – theft – property damage – entry to and drive motor vehicle without consent – application of Bugmy principles to non-Aboriginal offender – assessed as suitable for drug and alcohol treatment order – duration of treatment and supervision part of treatment order – no legislated period – treatment order suitable and appropriate – treatment order imposed |
Uploaded | DPP v Loughton (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 179 (SCC 255 of 2023; SCC 256 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – where offender convicted of incest, acts of indecency, and common assault – where victim under the age of 16 at the time of offending – offending in the low-to-mid ranges of objective seriousness – offender has pro social companions and family support, but continues to deny offending – good behaviour and intensive correction orders imposed The Supreme Court has sentenced this offender to 14 months’ imprisonment, to be served by intensive correction, and imposed good behaviour orders. The offender had been convicted of incest, acts of indecency, and common assault. The victim was under the age of 16 at the time of offending. The Supreme Court characterised the offending in question as being in the low-to-mid ranges of objective seriousness for offences of these types. The Supreme Court also noted that the offender has pro‑social companions and family support, but continues to deny offending. |
Uploaded | DPP v Hampson [2024] ACTSC 396 (SCC 252 of 2024; SCC 253 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – property offences –Bugmy, Henry, Verdins principles – childhood of profound disadvantage – significant motivation to rehabilitate – offending in ACT to obtain rehabilitative support through sentence order – community protection and rehabilitation – availability of secure housing – remorse – pragmatism in sentencing – restorative justice referral – drug and alcohol treatment order imposed |
Uploaded | Mason-Leonarder v Balfran Removals Pty Ltd [2025] ACTSC 191CIVIL LAW – ex parte application for leave to withhold disclosure of surveillance footage and reports from plaintiff until after the plaintiff’s evidence pursuant to r 6704 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – plaintiff claiming substantial damages following work injury – extent of plaintiff’s injury – footage and reports relevant to testing plaintiff’s evidence and credibility – application granted |
Uploaded | DPP v Garcia (a pseudonym) (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 190 (SCC 111 of 2023; SCC 345 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – act of indecency against a child under 10 in the back of child’s family car whilst family present – act of indecency against child under 10 in child’s family home – act of indecency against another person in her bed while a guest in her home, whilst she appeared asleep, with her partner and a child present but sleeping – offences in the mid-range of seriousness – offender assessed as suitable for intensive correction order with reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – period of full-time imprisonment necessary to properly denounce and deter the conduct, and recognise the harm done to the victims The Supreme Court has sentenced this offender to 25 months’ imprisonment for two counts of an act of indecency on a person under the age of 10 (one in the back of child’s family car with the child’s family present, one in the child’s family home) and an act of indecency on another person (in the victim’s bed while a guest in her home, whilst she appeared asleep, with her partner and a child also present but sleeping). The Supreme Court found offences to be in the mid-range of seriousness, and that offender had reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. The Supreme Court also noted that sexual offending directed to young children and adult females by adult males is appropriately a matter of concern in the community and must be denounced and deterred. |
Uploaded | DPP v Smith (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 188 (SCC 106 of 2023; SCC 107 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offender convicted by jury of sexual intercourse without consent and act of indecency without consent – offending occurred against the same victim, living with her while she was 34 weeks pregnant – where offender has significant criminal history – where offender has substance use disorder, antisocial traits and a schizophrenia-related condition – sentenced to three years and three months’ imprisonment The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to three years and three months’ imprisonment. The offender was convicted by a jury of sexual intercourse without consent and an act of indecency without consent against the same victim. The offender lived with the victim while she was 34 weeks pregnant. The offender had significant criminal history, substance use disorder, antisocial traits and a schizophrenia-related condition. |
Uploaded | Thompson v Steele [2025] ACTSC 187APPEAL – APPEAL FROM ACT MAGISTRATES COURT – Traffic offences – two charges of drive with prescribed drug in oral fluid – appeal against length of disqualification period – appeal on ground that magistrate used ‘default’ period of disqualification as a starting point for sentence rather than a process of instinctive synthesis – magistrate balanced considerations of protection of the community with the offender’s subjective circumstances – magistrate did undertake instinctive synthesis – appeal dismissed The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal from a magistrate. The appellant was convicted of two charges of drive with prescribed drug in oral fluid. The appeal was against the length of the disqualification period imposed on the ground that magistrate used ‘default’ period as the starting point rather than a process of instinctive synthesis. The court found that the magistrate did undertake instinctive synthesis, and hence, the appeal was dismissed. |
Uploaded | DPP v Morton [2024] ACTSC 98CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Tendency and coincidence evidence – 328 charges of dishonestly obtaining property by deception by director of a childcare centre – trial to be by judge alone – whether evidence on charges should be cross admissible for identified tendency and coincidence purposes – it should – turns on own facts The Supreme Court has allowed a prosecution application to lead tendency and coincidence evidence against an accused. The case against the accused involved 328 charges of obtaining property by deception relating to bank transfers and purchases made using a company credit card. The prosecution sought to rely upon the evidence led to support each charge to establish two tendencies on the part of the accused. The application also sought to allow the use of the evidence as coincidence evidence. The court applied ss 97, 98 and 101 of the Evidence Act and ruled that the evidence, or part of it, was admissible for tendency and coincidence purposes. |
Uploaded | DPP v Weldon (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 189 (SCC 70 of 2021)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST– Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach by further offending during good behaviour order component of drug and alcohol treatment order – order has since concluded – s 110 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act not of application – committal by Magistrates Court for breach proceeding prior to sentence proceeding in Magistrates Court – Magistrates Court sentence to take into account all relevant considerations – appropriate to take no further action with respect to the breach |
Uploaded | DPP v Booth [2024] ACTSC 368 (SCC 200 of 2024; SCC 201 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – attempted escape from lawful arrest – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – driving offences – burglary and theft – convicted no penalty imposed – whether drug and alcohol treatment order suitable and appropriate – lengthy criminal history – entrenched drug abuse issues – early exposure to substances reduces moral culpability – offences occurred while on conditional liberty – some engagement with rehabilitative services while in custody – assessed as suitable for drug and alcohol treatment order – drug and alcohol treatment order imposed – restorative justice referral |
Uploaded | DPP v Landon [2025] ACTSC 200 (SCC 82 of 2024; SCC 83 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – theft of vehicle keys – aid and abet theft of vehicle – offending motivated by spite – critical role – deterrence – intensive correction not required – suspended term of imprisonment imposed |
Uploaded | Reljic v Reljic [2025] ACTSC 198PROPERTY – sale of real property and consequential orders pursuant to Civil Law (Property) Act 2006 (ACT), s 244 – sale by consent COSTS – application by plaintiffs for defendant to pay the costs of the proceeding – where consent orders agreed shortly before hearing of previously contested application – whether each party acted reasonably – whether legal costs should be paid from the proceeds of sale The Supreme Court has made orders by consent providing for the sale of a residential property on conditions. The parties were co-owners of a residential lease. They reached agreement on the substantial issue in dispute but sought different orders in respect of the costs of the proceeding. The Court found that each party acted reasonably and ordered that the costs of the proceeding be paid out of the proceeds of sale prior to distribution as the costs were an incident of joint ownership. |
Uploaded | DPP v Mortimer [2025] ACTSC 168 (SCC 222 of 2023; SCC 223 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – persistent sexual abuse of a child – using a child for production of child exploitation material – aggravated common assault – 13 year old victim – [redacted] – youthful offender principles – consideration of Bugmy and Verdins principles – where offender has significant mental health difficulties and history of multiple cancer diagnoses – effect of custodial environment – likelihood of reoffending – intensive correction order not appropriate – fulltime partially suspended sentence The Supreme Court has sentenced a 20 year old offender to a total period of imprisonment of 4 years and 2 months for offences of persistent sexual abuse of a child, using a child for production of child exploitation material, and aggravated common assault. The Court considered the impact on the victim, community protection, rehabilitation, the offender’s traumatic childhood and his health conditions, and the youthful offender principles in assessing the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The sentence is to suspended after 18 months upon the offender entering an undertaking to comply with good behaviour obligations until the conclusion of the total sentence. |
Uploaded | Decision Restricted [2025] ACTSC 186CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Judicial Discretion to Admit or Exclude Evidence – DNA Evidence – s 137 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – balancing probative value against danger of unfair prejudice – CSI effect – a number of items of evidence ruled admissible – a number of items of evidence ruled inadmissible –– real risk of DNA transference or contamination – review of extensive body worn camera footage As the judgment is restricted, it is not publicly available. Any enquires about this decision should be directed to Loukas-Karlsson J's chambers. Associate.Loukas-KarlssonJ@courts.act.gov.au |
Uploaded | DPP v Little (a pseudonym) [2024] ACTSC 351CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Application to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity – where nature of earlier relationship is of substantial relevance to facts in issue – where admitting evidence will prevent assessment of alleged offending conduct in an artificial vacuum – leave granted |
Uploaded | DPP v Nicholls (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 194 (SCC 73 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – arson – motivation to destroy evidence – strong subjective case – demonstrated remorse – application of Bugmy principles – reduction in moral culpability – assessment of prospects of rehabilitation – imposition of partially suspended sentence – recommendation to engage with First Nations service providers |
Uploaded | DPP v Flynn [2025] ACTSC 23 (SCC 205 of 2023; SCC 221 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary offences – targeting of licensed club venues – whether drug and alcohol treatment order appropriate and suitable – previous non-compliance with community based orders – application of Bugmy, Verdins, Henry principles – offender demonstrates a depth of remorse and insight to the impacts of offending – drug and alcohol treatment order imposed |
Uploaded | DPP v Hodge [2025] ACTSC 82 (SCC 254 of 2024; SCC 255 of 2024; SCC 298 of 2024; SCC 299 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary – firearms stolen – property damage – driving offences – drug and alcohol treatment order sought – reduction for plea of guilty – established facts – not overwhelmingly strong case – significant criminal history limiting leniency – Bugmy and Henry principles – significant insight and remorse – complex therapeutic needs – treatment order not suitable or appropriate – deferred sentence order not appropriate – term of fulltime imprisonment with parole imposed |
Uploaded | DPP v Rohrlach (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 192 (SCC 275 of 2022)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach of good behaviour order while offender serving suspended sentence – where breach was at low end of seriousness and substantial period of time had passed without incident – where offender had taken rehabilitative steps in the meantime – offender resentenced The Sup Ct has resentenced an offender following a breach of a good behaviour order. The initial offences involved choking offences for which a total sentence of imprisonment of just over 8 months was imposed which, after taking into account time spent in custody, was fully suspended. The breach involved an offence of a failure to stop for police (resulting in a fine) and occurred after just over 6 months of the GBO had passed. The court considered that the imposition of the sentence of imprisonment would be disproportionate in the circumstances. Given the rehabilitative steps taken by the offender, the court determined to impose a sentence of the same duration, again fully suspended. |
Uploaded | DPP v Payne [2024] ACTSC 306 (SCC 157 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – act of endangering life by intentionally and unlawfully discharging a loaded arm – factual dispute as to knowledge of infant in the vehicle – seriousness of discharge of firearm in suburban location – offensive motive – inferences as to effect on victims – plea of guilty at hearing in Magistrates Court – consideration of likelihood of compliance with drug and alcohol treatment order – primacy of rehabilitation in sentencing exercise – notion of remorse – rehabilitation surest guarantor of community protection – treatment order imposed |
Uploaded | Kennedy v Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd (No 6) [2025] ACTSC 182PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – DIRECTIONS – Where plaintiff communicated that, due to being self-represented, he would be unable to comply with court orders pertaining to filing expert evidence – plaintiff did not wish to breach court order – where defendants wished to retain timetable that progressed matter towards a hearing – direction made accommodating for both considerations The Supreme Court has varied prior orders. Plaintiff communicated that due to being self-represented, he would be unable to comply with order pertaining to filing expert evidence and did not want to breach a court order. The defendants wished to retain a timetable that progressed the matter toward a hearing. Order made accommodating both considerations. |
Uploaded | DPP v Smith (No 4) [2024] ACTSC 301CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Pre-trial application – sexual offence proceedings – counsel for the accused sought to cross-examine complainant in relation to sexual activities – whether leave granted under s 76(1) Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) |
Uploaded | DPP v Smith (No 3) [2024] ACTSC 300CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Relationship evidence – context evidence – Pre-trial application |
Uploaded | DPP v Smith (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 95CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Tendency Evidence – Pre-trial Application – Application by prosecution to adduce tendency evidence – evidence suggesting a tendency to commit acts of family violence upon his domestic partner generally – application dismissed |
Uploaded | DPP v Shasha (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 86 (SCC 194 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – determining the circumstances of offending – objective seriousness of each charge – findings of fact must be consistent with the verdicts returned by the jury – scale of penalties available – convictions recorded – offender’s honest belief the victim was 16 years old inadequately formulated – present case falls well outside the usual case of child sexual offending |
Uploaded | B v Missionaries of the Sacred Heart [2025] ACTSC 144PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CROSS-VESTING – Application by plaintiff to cross vest personal injury proceedings for child sexual abuse to Victorian Supreme Court – where two other matters involving same priest in Victoria – where a change in law in Victoria possible – where proceedings, if transferred, may be heard by jury – it is in the interests of justice that tendency witnesses alleging sexual assaults give evidence only once – proceedings transferred The Supreme Court has granted an application by the plaintiff to transfer his personal injury proceedings for child sexual abuse to the Victorian Supreme Court, where two other matters involving the same priest are on foot. A change in law in Victoria is possible. Further, the proceedings, if transferred, may be heard by jury. The Supreme Court observed that it is in the interests of justice that tendency witnesses alleging sexual assaults give evidence only once. The proceedings were transferred. |
Uploaded | Ruspandini v Summernats Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 171CIVIL PROCEDURE – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – claim for damages for personal injury – application of Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 |
Uploaded | DPP v Martin (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 181 (SCC 334 of 2024; SCC 335 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm – Contravention of Family Violence Order – seriousness of offences – consideration of discount for guilty plea in family violence circumstances |
Uploaded | DPP v Kaye (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 169 (SCC 315 of 2024; SCC 316 of 2024; SCC 41 of 2025; SCC 42 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – child offender – young person – aggravated robbery – co-offender – make demand accompanied by threat – ride/drive motor vehicle without consent – aggravated burglary – assessment of maturity – application of Bugmy principles – assessment of prospects of rehabilitation – promotion of rehabilitative prospects – imposition of partially and fully suspended sentences |
Uploaded | DPP v Kay [2024] ACTSC 284 (SCC 14 of 2024; SCC 15 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – unauthorised manufacture of firearms – disposal of unregistered firearm – unauthorised possession or use of firearm – grave seriousness of 3D printed functional firearms – assessment of objective seriousness of firearm offending – risk to individuals and community – non-prohibited form does not significantly reduce seriousness – sophistication and planning – general deterrence – protection of community – whether drug and alcohol treatment order appropriate and suitable – minimal criminal history – non-linear nature of rehabilitation from drug dependency – drug dependency substantially contributed to offending – drug and alcohol treatment order imposed |
Uploaded | Cook-Bateman v Adham [2025] ACTSC 173CIVIL LAW – application for the plaintiff to receive authorisation to proceed further with claim despite non-compliance pursuant to section 59(1)(c) of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) – application for leave to be given nunc pro tunc to begin proceedings for damages pursuant to section 79 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 – alleged medical negligence – whether the granting of the authorisation would be futile – reasons for delay – length of delay – degree of prejudice to the parties – uncertain operation of automatic stay – applications granted – proceedings stayed for 6 months The Supreme Court has authorised the plaintiff to proceed further with her medical negligence claim notwithstanding her failure to give a complying notice of claim, and granted her leave nunc pro tunc to begin the proceedings notwithstanding non-compliance with the requirements of Ch 5 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002, invoking ss 59 and 79 respectively. |
Uploaded | Fuller v ACT (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 174TORT – NEGLIGENCE – Damages – medical negligence – broken needle lodged in or near spine in preparation for caesarean section – plaintiff sustained radiculopathy and other related harm – general damages awarded – damages awarded for some loss of earning capacity – damages also awarded for domestic assistance and other out of pocket expenses – damages for use of sick leave not awarded, but leave given for further submissions to be made on that issue The Supreme Court has awarded almost $200,000 in damages to a mother who had a broken needle lodged in or near her spine during a caesarean section due to medical negligence. The incident caused radiculopathy and other related harm. The Supreme Court’s quantification of damages included damages for loss of earning capacity, for domestic assistance, and for other out of pocket expenses. |
Uploaded | DPP v Jember [2024] ACTSC 311 (SCC 74 of 2024; SCC 75 of 2024; SCC108 of 2024; SCC109 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aid and abet burglary – trafficking controlled drug – driving disqualified – moral culpability reduced with reference to childhood disadvantage – whether drug and alcohol treatment order appropriate and suitable – suitability of drug trafficking offender for treatment order – potential risk to recovery of other participants – trust in participants to identify problematic behaviours – charge involving trafficable quantity however intended for personal use – purpose of a treatment order – offender suitable – drug and alcohol treatment order imposed |
Uploaded | DPP v Winters [2024] ACTSC 293 (SCC 327 of 2022; SCC 60 of 2023; SCC 303 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – knowingly concerned in burglary by joint commission – aggravated burglary – theft by joint commission – damage property by joint commission – offences committed while on drug and alcohol treatment order – treatment order cancelled on earlier occasion – whether to resentence or impose sentence – offending occurred within one month of imposition of treatment order – prospects of rehabilitation – substantial non-compliance with treatment order – imposition of balance of the term of imprisonment – Bugmy principles – early substance use – connection to culture – strong motivation to rehabilitate – period of imprisonment imposed with respect to new offending – rehabilitation through parole |
Uploaded | DPP v Hope (No 3); DPP v Hope [2024] ACTSC 261 (SCC 195 of 2023; SCC 195 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – imposition or resentence following s 80ZE cancellation of a drug and alcohol treatment order – breaches of treatment order – no compliance with treatment order – further offending – sentence of imprisonment imposed |
Uploaded | Commissioner for Fair Trading v Bowes Street Developments Pty Ltd (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 165CONSUMER LAW – CIVIL PENALTY PROVISIONS – Pecuniary penalties sought for misleading representations pursuant to s 224, sch 2 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (the ACL) – consideration of totality of contraventions – course of conduct – where evidence did not allow for quantification of particular benefit derived or loss suffered from relevant conduct – on balance of probabilities some loss occasioned to purchasers – conduct of directors was cavalier, disdainful, contemptuous and scornful of consumers – apportionment of penalty between defendants – where relationship of principal and agent – instinctive synthetical approach applied to determination of appropriate penalty – declaratory relief granted CONSUMER LAW – ADVERSE PUBLICITY ORDER – s 247 of the ACL – purpose of corrective advertising is to deter contravening conduct, protect public and inform consumers – to achieve protective and deterrent purpose, notices to include the brand names utilised in the marketing – corrective notices to be published in Canberra Times for a period of 7 consecutive days – corrective letters to be sent to original purchasers PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Plaintiff wholly successful against fourth and fifth defendants but unsuccessful on second tier agency case against first to third defendants – plaintiff sought costs against fourth and fifth defendants and majority of costs against first to third defendants – first to third defendants sought their costs against plaintiff – where all defendants played active role in substantive issues in proceedings – where second tier agency case capable of separation from balance of matters in issue – where first to third defendants were beneficiaries of contraventions engaged in by fourth and fifth defendants – fourth and fifth defendants to pay plaintiff’s costs – proportionate costs order against first to third defendants The Supreme Court has imposed pecuniary penalties in the sum of $3,225,000 each against GZ Developments Pty Ltd and GRE Sales Pty Ltd respectively following adverse findings made by the Court against them in Commissioner for Fair Trading v Bowes Street Developments Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] ACTSC 315. The Court in that decision held that representations made during the advertising process for a residential apartment development in Woden Town Centre were misleading, deceptive or false. The Court also granted the Commissioner declaratory relief, ordered the publication of corrective notices in the Canberra Times and the issuing of corrective letters to original purchasers of units in the development. The Court ordered GZ Developments Pty Ltd and GRE Sales Pty Ltd pay the Commissioner’s costs, and Bowes Street Developments Pty Ltd, Geocon Bowes Street JV Pty Ltd, and Zapari Property Bowes Street Pty Ltd pay ninety percent of the Commissioner’s costs because, although they succeeded on one point, they had been unsuccessful on all the other issues which they contested. The Commissioner was ordered to pay ten percent of Bowes Street Developments Pty Ltd, Geocon Bowes Street JV Pty Ltd, and Zapari Property Bowes Street Pty Ltd’s costs in relation to the one issue on which they succeeded. |
Uploaded | R v Slattery (No 3); DPP v Slattery [2025] ACTSC 125 (SCC 100 of 2023; SCC 101 of 2023; SCC 184 of 2023; SCC 185 of 2023; SCC 207 of 2023; SCC 339 of 2023; SCC 340 of 2023; SCC 55 of 2025)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – property offences – driving offences – using a carriage service with threat to cause serious harm – family violence – offender previously successfully completed treatment and supervision part of drug and alcohol treatment order – breach of good behaviour component – whether treatment order suitable and appropriate – Bugmy and Henry principles – sentenced to drug and alcohol treatment order – statutory interpretation – Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) – lacuna and ambiguity in drug and alcohol sentencing legislation – whether good behaviour order part of drug and alcohol treatment order – diagrammatical representation of a treatment order – whether court has power to deal with breaches of good behaviour order portion of treatment order after expiration – s 80ZD does not apply – conferral of power in s 107 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) |
Uploaded | Van Duren v ACT [2025] ACTSC 149PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – WANT OF PROSECUTION – Non appearance by plaintiff and failure to adhere to procedural orders of the court – whether pleadings inadequate in circumstances of a non-routine claim of personal injury – effect of pleadings on deciding upon want of prosecution – whether plaintiff affected by medical condition impacting ability to effectively prosecute proceedings – pleadings inadequate and medical conditions of plaintiff interfering ability to prosecute – proceedings dismissed The Supreme Court has dismissed proceedings for want of prosecution. The plaintiff failed to adhere to procedural orders of the court and did not appear at hearings. The plaintiff’s pleadings were inadequate in the circumstances of a non-routine claim of personal injury, which affected the court’s decision upon whether there was a want of prosecution. The plaintiff also had some evidence of being impacted by medical conditions, which the court considered in deciding to dismiss proceedings. |
Uploaded | Rees-Wlodek v Calvary Healthcare ACT Limited [2025] ACTSC 162CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – claim for damages for medical negligence – application of Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 |
Uploaded | Omran v AAI Ltd [2025] ACTSC 150PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – DISCOVERY – Where discovery initially not provided due to unintentional oversight – where further discovery sought to enable plaintiff to potentially join additional defendant and expand claim – where application would require vacation of hearing date – purpose of discovery is not to disclose possible causes of action against third parties – additional claim ought to have been apparent from commencement of proceedings – vacation of set hearing dates not appropriate – application dismissed The Supreme Court has dismissed an application for further and better discovery, and for the vacation of set a hearing date. Discovery had initially not been provided due to an unintentional oversight by the defendants. However, the plaintiff also sought further discovery to potentially join an additional defendant and expand its claim. Granting the application would require the vacation of the hearing date. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the application with costs, noted that the purpose of discovery is not to disclose possible causes of action against third parties, and that vacating set hearing dates is an unpalatable course of action for the court. |
Uploaded | DPP v Miller (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 88 (SCC 109 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – cancellation of drug and alcohol treatment order – imposition or resentence – likelihood of achieving objects of order – where participant remains committed to rehabilitation but is unlikely to meet objects – cancellation unlikely to be impediment to rehabilitation – treatment order cancelled – positive prosects of rehabilitation – non-linear nature of rehabilitation – resentence – aggravated choke, strangle, suffocate – aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – partially suspended sentence imposed |
Uploaded | R v Donnelly (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 157 (SCC 173 of 2020; SCC 174 of 2020)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – imposition or resentence following s 80ZE cancellation of a drug and alcohol treatment order – breaches of treatment order – variety of ways to reflect totality principle – totality informative as to setting of nonparole period – substantial period spend in custody in NSW – statutory interpretation – s 80ZJ warrant issued while treatment order still active – treatment order extant while warrant remains unexecuted – power to deal with an offender following expiration of treatment order – offender resentenced |
Uploaded | DPP v Dhamala [2025] ACTSC 142 (SCC 110 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – three counts of acts of indecency without consent – employment relationship between offender and victim where offender was more senior – offender and victim spoke same language other than English and offender had superior grasp of English – lack of consent unequivocal – remorse expressed – educational experience and family support – good prospects of rehabilitation – intensive correction order with community service imposed |
Uploaded | Re Mortimer: referral under r 6142 [2025] ACTSC 158PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ABUSE OF PROCESS – Referral of document for directions pursuant to Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 6142 – document filed by non-party without application for joinder, sought final relief via application in proceeding and sought relief that the court had no power to make – direction made to reject document |
Uploaded | Manny v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 146PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – strike out and summary dismissal – competing application for summary judgment – whether proceedings constitute abuse of process – whether proceedings disclose reasonable cause of action – where claims sought to be raised previously litigated and determined – where allegations made against non-parties – where no arguable claim otherwise able to be discerned – summary dismissal ordered Manny v Australian Postal Corporation [2025] ACTSC 148CIVIL PROCEDURE – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – summary judgment – summary dismissal – where no cause of action disclosed – whether proceedings constitute abuse of process – where claims sought to be raised previously litigated and determined – where defendant also relies on statutory immunity – summary dismissal ordered Manny v University of Canberra (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 147CIVIL PROCEDURE – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – summary judgment – summary dismissal – whether defendant has a good defence on the merits – whether arguable cause of action raised – where no arguable basis for any claim – summary dismissal ordered Manny v ACT [2025] ACTSC 151PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – STRIKE-OUT – whether proceedings disclose reasonable cause of action – leave granted to replead on conditions The Supreme Court has delivered four judgments dealing with 14 proceedings where parties were seeking summary relief against each other. The plaintiff in each proceeding raised similar allegations against different defendants, ranging across negligence, breach of statutory duty, fraud, misleading and deceptive conduct, racial discrimination and breach of the plaintiff’s human rights. Some of the claims propounded were found to be an abuse of process. However, the Court determined that leave should be granted to replead four proceedings, subject to conditions, as the defendant in those proceedings (the Australian Capital Territory) accepted that the plaintiff had raised arguable claims. The remaining 10 proceedings were each dismissed. |
Uploaded | Decision Restricted [2025] ACTSC 155CRIMINAL LAW – application for disclosure of protected confidences to be admitted – where complainant’s memories of sexual assault are “recovered memories” – whether mental health professional involved in complainant’s recovery of memories of alleged offending – comments made about “frustratingly opaque” provisions of the EMP Act As the judgment is restricted, it is not publicly available. Any enquires about this decision should be directed to Baker J 's chambers. Associate.BakerJ@courts.act.gov.au |
Uploaded | Decision Restricted [2025] ACTSC 154CRIMINAL LAW – application for evidence of prior sexual activity of complainant to be admitted – evidence of sexual activities between complainant and her cousin from when they were young children – where complainant’s memories of sexual assault are “recovered memories” – whether complainant’s memories of sexual assault are of her cousin or of the accused – evidence substantially relevant to fact in issue As the judgment is restricted, it is not publicly available. Any enquires about this decision should be directed to Baker J 's chambers. Associate.BakerJ@courts.act.gov.au |
Uploaded | Decision Restricted [2025] ACTCA 13CRIMINAL LAW – tendency evidence – acts of indecency to persons under 16 years by a young person – whether in the interests of justice to revisit pre-trial ruling admitting tendency evidence – whether presumption of significant probative value under s 97A of the Evidence Act was displaced – where prosecution sought to rely on different tendency to that specified in the tendency notice – appeal dismissed As the judgment is restricted, it is not publicly available. Any enquires about this decision should be directed to Mossop J’s chambers. Associate.MossopJ@courts.act.gov.au |
Uploaded | Barrett (a pseudonym) v Pemberton [2025] ACTSC 152CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – family violence offence – contravene family violence order – application for non-conviction order – intoxication – conviction recorded APPEAL – Appeal from Magistrates Court – adequacy of reasons – whether sentence manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against sentence from the Magistrates Court. The appellant was convicted of contravening a family violence order in the Magistrates Court and was sentenced to a six-month good behaviour order. The appellant appealed this sentence, alleging that the Magistrate erred by not expressing an assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending conduct, not specifying a discount for the appellant’s guilty plea, not giving adequate reasons and not taking into account two days of pretrial custody. The appellant also contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and that the Magistrate should have made a non-conviction order. Justice Baker dismissed the appeal. |
Uploaded | Shoveller v Scott [2025] ACTSC 153APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – sword-wielding man barricaded in a car outside Parliament House – yelling man with selfie stick approaches – refuses to stay outside cordon established by police – man, yelling, arrested – convicted of hindering public officials – no legal authority for purported cordon established – magistrate erred in declining to entertain the issue – appeal allowed APPEAL – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Where magistrate did not examine the legality of cordon purportedly established by police – error led to miscarriage of justice – inappropriate to remit the matter – convictions reversed POLICE – RIGHTS, POWERS AND DUTIES – Whether police had statutory or common law power to establish cordon around critical incident – boundaries of cordon, and other operational details, not established by evidence – no power to establish a cordon relied upon before the magistrate or on appeal – availability of any such cordon power not established A sword-wielding man had barricaded himself inside a car outside Parliament House in mid-2023. The appellant sought to approach and video that incident, refusing to remain outside a cordon established by police. The appellant, yelling, was arrested for hindering the officers in their duties. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding that it was not established that there was lawful authority for police to maintain an enforceable cordon. The Supreme Court set aside the convictions and entered verdicts of not guilty. |
Uploaded | Williams v DPP [2024] ACTCA 24Judgment SummaryAPPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against jury verdict – appeal brought on ground that inconsistent verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported having regard to the evidence – appellant submitted factual inconsistency between finding of not guilty on one count and not the other – obvious explanation for inconsistency due to evidence for one count being clearer and more prominent than the other – jury conscientiously performed their duty |
Uploaded | Allen v ACT [2025] ACTSC 48CIVIL PROCEDURE – Originating Claim – claim for damages for medical negligence – where proceedings commenced before plaintiff had complied with the requirements of Ch 5 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) – where plaintiff has complex medical condition requiring further surgery – application for stay of proceedings pending completion of the required steps |
Uploaded | Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shearman (No 5) [2024] ACTSC 402CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by plaintiff for leave to issue subpoenas before allocation of hearing date – where plaintiff seeking production of correspondence with defendants’ expert – where defendant swore lengthy affidavit explaining the process undertaken by her to obtain expert reports – self-represented defendant of limited resources – undesirability of imposing requirement to comply with subpoena in addition to other steps required CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for guillotine order – complex building dispute conducted by self-represented litigant – undesirability of pre-emptively determining consequence of failure to comply with timetable |
Uploaded | Pacific Formwork (Aust) Holdings Pty Ltd v United Rentals Australia Pty Ltd [2025] ACTSC 143CIVIL LAW – possession of goods by a person other than the owner – where goods belonging to the respondent were abandoned by a third party on premises leased from the appellant – whether circumstances governed by the Uncollected Goods Act – whether Act operates as a bar to common law claims in conversion and detinue – requirements of a valid notice under s 7 of the Act – reasonableness of costs required by possessor to be met by the owner before the goods will be released |
Uploaded | DPP v Umunakwe (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 139 (SCC 187 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse without consent – offender found guilty at jury trial – finding that offender had knowledge of victim’s non-consent – offending committed in breach of conditional liberty – relevance of risk of deportation – limited remorse – need for punishment and denunciation – harm to victim recognised – term of imprisonment imposed The Supreme Court sentenced an offender to a term of imprisonment for sexual intercourse without consent. The Court found the offender had knowledge of the complainant’s lack of consent. The Court took into account the offender’s risk of deportation and considered his subjective circumstances did not outweigh the need for punishment, denunciation and recognition of the harm to the victim. |
Uploaded | DPP v Sheridan (a pseudonym) (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 75CRIMINAL LAW – application for directed verdict of acquittal for two counts – whether position of the complainant during alleged sexual offending an essential particular – count particularised as the “first instance” of anal intercourse – complainant’s evidence regarding “switching” between anal and vaginal penetration unclear – high threshold for directed verdict not met for either count – application dismissed |
Uploaded | DPP v Sheridan (a pseudonym) (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 61CRIMINAL LAW – application for disclosure of protected confidences – accused seeking complainant’s health records to confirm if complainant received diagnoses of mental illnesses by a medical practitioner – documents produced on subpoena by Canberra Health Services did not fall within this description – redacted note from complainant’s general practitioner disclosed – comments made about “frustratingly opaque” provisions of the EMP Act |
Uploaded | DPP v Sheridan (a pseudonym) (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 57CRIMINAL LAW – application for evidence of prior sexual activity of complainant to be admitted - where complainant engaged in sexual intercourse with another person shortly after alleged offending – where complainant gave evidence she sustained significant injuries during the course of alleged sexual offending – evidence admitted |
Uploaded | DPP v Sheridan (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 56CRIMINAL LAW – application for advance ruling regarding admissibility of evidence of complainant’s mental health and medication – relevance of side effects of medication and combination of medication with alcohol – whether complainant’s mental health conditions made her more likely to be impulsive – whether evidence relevant only to credibility – whether probative value of evidence substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice – any prejudice to prosecution to be addressed by jury warning |
Uploaded | DPP v Sullivan (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 134 (SCC 125 of 2023; SCC 126 of 2023; SCC 186 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – commercial premises – unlawful possession of stolen property – possession of offensive weapon with intent –- mental illness – Verdins considerations – parole time credit – illicit substance use – complex rehabilitation prospects – institutionalised offender The Supreme Court sentenced an offender to a total period of imprisonment of 7 years, 2 months and 28 days for 3 counts of aggravated robbery, 1 count of unlawful possession of stolen property and 1 count of possess offensive weapon with intent. In sentencing the offender, the Court considered the offender’s mental illness, substance use and history of institutionalisation. The Court further had regard to the principles concerning parole time credit under Chapter 7 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) in circumstances where the offender was on parole at the time he committed the offences. |
Uploaded | DPP v Sheridan (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 25CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – sexual violence offences – application by accused for order for particulars – entitlement of accused to know the particular act, matter or thing alleged as the foundation for each charge – consideration of manner in which particulars may be provided – whether counts alleging separate acts of penetration within single episode of alleged sexual offending bad in form CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – other sexual activity – general immunity of evidence of complainant’s other sexual activities – application for leave to cross-examine – where prosecution concedes leave should be granted – absence of evidence necessary to assess appropriateness of granting leave CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to have subpoenas set aside – where subpoenas seek medical records and about complainant’s mental health for period of four years after alleged offences – where subpoena seeks complainant’s personal diaries over five years – whether any legitimate forensic purpose established |
Uploaded | Chapman v Cottle (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 126APPEAL - CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal from the Magistrates Court against sentence – residual discretion - matter decided subsequent to referral to full court – sentence not manifestly inadequate – lenient sentence – sentencing Rubicon of manifest inadequacy not crossed The Supreme Court has dismissed a prosecution appeal against a sentence of a non-conviction order and good behaviour order imposed in relation to various offences in the Magistrates Court. Additionally, the judgment of Loukas Karlsson J provided discussion in relation to the residual discretion. |
Uploaded | DPP v Walker (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 141 (SCC 151 of 2024; SCC 419 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – family violence with children present – burglary – reduction for plea of guilty in the Supreme Court to charge resolution offered in the Magistrates Court – foetal alcohol effects – constellation of Bugmy, Verdins, and Henry principles – fulltime imprisonment – intensive correction order imposed The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to 6 months imprisonment for the charge of aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and 14 months for the offence of burglary, with applied discounts for the offender’s pleas of guilty. The sentence for the offence of burglary is to be served by way of intensive correction order. The Court considered the offender’s subjective circumstances, including a childhood of deprivation and in-utero exposure to alcohol use, in formulating the appropriate sentence orders. The Court considered that a constellation of the principles contained in Bugmy, Verdins, and Henry applied in the offender’s circumstances, such that there was a moderation of moral culpability and the role of general deterrence in the sentences imposed. The Court also resentenced the offender to the rising of the Court for two breached good behaviour orders. |
Uploaded | DPP v Loiterton [2025] ACTSC 59 (SCC 55 of 2024; SCC 56 of 2024; SCC 181 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – drive at police officer – striking police officer causing injury and harm – particulars of offence – reckless – prevalence and general deterrence – imprisonment only appropriate penalty – remarkable rehabilitative progress – depth of genuine remorse and insight – two wrongs do not make a right – suspended sentence with community service imposed The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for an offence of drive motor vehicle at police. The Court found the offending to be a serious example of the offence, as the police officer was struck by the offender’s car, causing injury. However, the subjective circumstances of the offender, including their commitment to rehabilitation, their mental health conditions, and their remorse and insight into the offending , supported a sentence that would ensure their rehabilitation would continue to significantly reduce their likelihood of reoffending. The offender was sentenced to three years imprisonment, fully suspended with a good behaviour order requiring the offender to perform 300 hours of community service within 2 years. |
Uploaded | CDLC Pty Ltd v Capital Estate Developments Pty Ltd (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 137PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – SUBPOENAS – legitimate forensic purpose – where issue at trial is whether landlord’s refusal to consent to lease transfer is reasonable – where legislation confines material to be used in assessment of reasonableness – where pleadings join issue with landlord’s basis of refusal – legitimate forensic purpose established The Sup Ct has dismissed an application to set aside subpoenas. The parties were involved in a leasing dispute. An issue at trial will be whether the landlord unreasonably withheld consent to the sale of two businesses to third parties. Previously in the same proceeding, the Ct held that the legislation limited the scope of the documents relevant to the assessment of reasonableness depending on the basis communicated for withholding consent. However, as that issue was disputed on the pleadings, it was properly a matter for trial. There remained a legitimate forensic purpose in seeking to obtain the documents under subpoena now even though ultimately the documents may not be admissible if the Ct were to accept the plaintiffs’ argument about the landlord’s communicated reasons for refusal at trial. |
Uploaded | DPP v Little (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 112CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pre-trial application – application to waive pre-trial disclosure requirements – expert evidence – late disclosure – whether it is in the interests of justice to waive pre-trial disclosure requirements – application refused |
Uploaded | House v ACT [2025] ACTSC 122HUMAN RIGHTS – EXTENSION OF TIME – Where one-year limitation period for starting proceedings against a public authority applies pursuant to s 40C(3) of the Human Rights Act “unless the court orders otherwise” – where leave only required for one paragraph of pleadings and proceedings otherwise commenced within time – whether pleadings adequately allege how breaches of ss 8(2) and 27(2) of the Human Rights Act occurred – effect of adequacy of pleadings on court’s discretion to otherwise order – extension of time not granted – leave granted to file amended pleading The Supreme Court has not granted an extension of time to the plaintiffs pursuant to s 40C(3) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), but has granted leave to them to file an amended pleading. Extension of time was only required for one paragraph of the pleadings, but the pleadings did not adequately allege how breaches of ss 8(2) and 27(2) of the Act had occurred. An extension of time was therefore not granted in the absence of adequate pleadings. |
Uploaded | Tamayo-Del-Solar v DPP [2025] ACTSC 120CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to withdraw guilty plea to 3 counts of an act of indecency – underlying circumstances surrounding the plea – whether miscarriage of justice would result if plea not withdrawn – where facts supporting counts not agreed at the time pleas entered – where applicant later denies conduct constituting acts of indecency – where applicant had sufficient opportunity to consider charges – no miscarriage of justice found The Supreme Court has refused an application to withdraw guilty pleas made in respect of 3 counts of an act of indecency. The applicant did not sign a statement of agreed facts at the time the pleas were entered and did not subsequently agree with the facts constituting the elements of the offence. In finding that there were no circumstances that would result in a miscarriage of justice if the pleas were not withdrawn, the court found the applicant had legal representation and was not given inappropriate legal advice, that the pleas were voluntarily entered without undue pressure or duress, that he was advised of the allegations and understood them at the time of deciding to enter the pleas, and that the applicant intended to plead to each of the three counts. Accordingly, no circumstances affecting the integrity of the pleas were established. |
Uploaded | The Owners – Units Plan No 4312 v Project Coordination Australia Pty Ltd [2025] ACTSC 110PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PARTIES – Application to join director of a defendant company as tenth defendant in proceedings – reliance placed by plaintiff on rr 211 and 220 of the Court Procedures Rules – application for joinder justifiable under either of those rules notwithstanding that a rigid grammatical analysis of each rule could narrow its operation The Supreme Court has allowed an application by the plaintiff to join the director of a defendant company as the tenth defendant in proceedings. Reliance was placed by the plaintiff on rr 211 and 220 of the Court Procedures Rules. The application for joinder was justifiable under either of those rules notwithstanding that a rigid grammatical analysis of each rule could narrow its operation. |
Uploaded | Kennedy v Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 102PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – DIRECTIONS – Directions made in relation to the serving of expert evidence and attendance at mediations – 90-step timetable proposed by plaintiff – more limited timetable proposed by defendants focusing on expert evidence and mediations – the latter course more appropriate in interests of advancing the proceedings towards a resolution PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY – Oral application by plaintiff for judge to recuse himself – application of the fair-minded lay observer test – application refused The Supreme Court has made directions in relation to the serving of expert evidence and attendance at mediations. The plaintiff proposed a 90-step timetable, the defendants proposed a more limited timetable focusing on expert evidence and mediations. The latter course was considered more appropriate in the interests of advancing the proceedings towards a resolution. An application for the judge to recuse himself was dismissed as the fair-minded lay observer test was not met. |
Uploaded | DPP v Savage (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 121CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Non-graduate completion of Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order – participant remains committed to life of rehabilitation – fish breeding – science – participant moved to good behaviour order– order confirmed UNREPORTED DECISION – history of victim impact statements – drive motor vehicle at police officer – cause grievous bodily harm – failing to stop for police – possession of offensive weapon – drive with prescribed drug in oral fluid – drug and alcohol treatment order imposed The Supreme Court has confirmed the order of a participant on the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List (the List), moving them to the good behaviour portion of their drug and alcohol treatment order in a non-graduate completion of the order. The judgment attaches as a schedule an unreported decision of the List that considers the history of victim impact statements and gives consideration to offences including drive motor vehicle at police. |
Uploaded | DPP v Linde [2025] ACTSC 116 (SCC 348 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – theft – attempted aggravated robbery – entry to apartment and luxury items stolen – robbery of co-owners of IGA – assault and verbal threats – s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) – existing and primary sentence – resetting of nonparole period – need to not be crushing – rehabilitation The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a total period of imprisonment of 3 years for offences of aggravated burglary by joint commission, theft by joint commission, and attempted aggravated robbery by joint commission. In sentencing the offender, the Court considered the offenders substance use, childhood circumstances, and previous periods of sobriety. The Court further had regard to the totality principle, and s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), in circumstances where the offender is already serving a period of imprisonment with a nonparole period attached. The offender will now become eligible for parole on 1 July 2025. |
Uploaded | Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 119PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INJUNCTIONS – Interlocutory relief – where plaintiff sought to restrain Integrity Commission from publishing proposed second report in Operation Luna – serious question to be tried – where, due to existing publication of first report, any harm by publication of proposed second report would merely be additional to that occasioned by first report – where injunction would impede the Commission’s important public function proximate to the centre of government – where the subject-matter of substantive proceedings relate to first, not second, report – interlocutory injunction not granted PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INJUNCTIONS – Availability of interlocutory relief where the subject-matter of an injunction (a report) could be subject to change – argument by defendant that injunctive relief inappropriate where the contents of the proposed second report may change – in the circumstances, the probability of a relevant change was low – not a basis to decline interlocutory relief EVIDENCE – PRIVILEGE – Parliamentary privilege – where claim for interlocutory relief relates to unpublished proposed second report of Integrity Commission – where claim for final relief in the same proceedings relates to published first report – where reports potentially subject to parliamentary privilege – parliamentary privilege issue to be determined after final hearing – first and proposed second reports admitted into evidence to assess whether there is a serious question to be tried and the relationship between the content of the first and second reports – such a course not contrary to Art 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 The Supreme Court has declined to issue an interlocutory injunction against the ACT Integrity Commission which would have restrained the Commission from publishing, and presenting to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, its proposed second report in Operation Luna. While the court accepted that there was a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience did not favour the granting of an injunction. That conclusion was reached because, among other factors, the Commission is an institution whose function is proximate to the centre of Territory government, and any harm from the publication of a second report would be merely additional to that caused by the publication of the first report. |
Uploaded | In the Estate of Cornwell [2025] ACTSC 118WILLS, PROBATE & ADMINISTRATION – Informality – Wills Act 1968 (ACT) s 11A – where testator executed will overseas – where only one witness present in room and other witness present via audio-visual means – where no legislative provision for electronic witnessing in Territory – relief granted CONFLICT OF LAWS – Wills – where testator domiciled in Territory but executed will in Vietnam – where solicitor relied on provisions applicable in NSW permitting will to be witnessed by electronic means – whether provision applies to document witnessed. The Supreme Court has declared that a will which was executed in Vietnam by a man domiciled in the ACT without complying with the formalities of the Wills Act 1968 (ACT) constitutes the last will of the deceased. The informal will had been witnessed by a solicitor located in NSW using audio-visual means. Such a procedure is available under section 14G of the Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (NSW) but there is no equivalent provision in the ACT. The Court considered governing law was that of the Territory but was satisfied that the deceased intended the informal will to operate as his will at the time he executed it. |
Uploaded | DPP v Hyatt [2025] ACTSC 103 (SCC 6 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – act of indecency – no criminal history – discount for plea of guilty – significant remorse and rehabilitation – delay and rehabilitation – boundaries and consensual sexual intercourse – deleterious effect of pornography – intensive corrections order The ACTSC has sentenced an offender for one offence of committing an act of indecency without consent. The offender committed the offence against the victim several years ago. The offender received an overall sentence of 1 year imprisonment, to be served by way of Intensive Corrections Order. |
Uploaded | In the Estate of Grant Edward Flitton (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 117SUCCESSION – WILLS, PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION – Application for judicial advice – deceased left no will – application of Sch 6 of the Administration and Probate Act – evidence not conclusive but strongly indicative of deceased not being survived by partner, issue, parents or grandparents but survived by a cousin – counsel’s advice provided and affidavit evidence deposed by friend, former partner, solicitor and Public Trustee and Guardian – Benjamin order made |
Uploaded | Law Society v Ford (No 3) [2025] ACTSCFC 1PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Where defendant struck off roll of solicitors – where plaintiff wholly successful in the proceedings – where plaintiff had made settlement offers – where defendant sought not to pay plaintiff’s costs – where defendant pointed to range of factors in the history of this and other proceedings – defendant’s submissions contained arguments that either were scandalous, attempted to relitigate resolved matters, had no proven foundation, or indicated lack of understanding of judicial process – plaintiff’s choice of jurisdiction not inappropriate – defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Where arguments raised to depart from the usual rule as to costs – argument as to appropriateness of plaintiff’s choice of forum, namely the ACAT, where plaintiff could have commenced proceedings in Supreme Court – argument alleging defendant’s own impecuniosity – argument that costs in past related proceedings encompass all or much of subsequent proceedings – arguments rejected The Supreme Court has awarded costs in proceedings where the defendant was struck off the roll of solicitors. The plaintiff was wholly successful and had made settlement offers, but the defendant sought not to pay plaintiff’s costs. Defendant’s submissions lacked proven foundation or were otherwise without merit. Argument as to appropriateness of the original forum (ACAT) when proceedings could have been commenced in Supreme Court, and a further argument as to the defendant’s impecuniosity were rejected. |
Uploaded | DPP v Wade [2024] ACTSC 392 (SCC 182 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual offences committed on a family member – disputed facts hearing – directions – victim and offender credibility – findings – value of relatively early guilty plea eroded by the hearing – offender’s experience of childhood sexual abuse – remorse and insight –elderly and physical health issues – no penalty other than fulltime imprisonment warranted – mercy in sentencing |
Uploaded | Hall (a pseudonym) v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn [2025] ACTSC 113CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – Leave to disclose protected confidences nunc pro tunc – Division 4.4.3 Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) – whether legitimate forensic purpose – whether public interest in ensuring fair hearing outweighs public interest in preserving confidentiality of protected confidence – leave granted STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – WORDS AND PHRASES – meaning of “proceeding” – where chapter appears to apply only to sexual, violent and family violence offence proceedings but definition applying within division dealing with disclosure of protected confidences refers to both civil and criminal proceedings The Supreme Court has granted leave to disclose protected confidences in a personal injury claim. The Court observed that notwithstanding the consent of the counselled person (the plaintiff) to the disclosure and the pre-trial statutory obligations of disclosure for such matters under the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), the legislation still required an application for leave to be made to the Court. Leave was granted as the Court was satisfied the public interest in ensuring a fair hearing outweighed the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of the protected confidences. |
Uploaded | DPP v Vance (a pseudonym) [2024] ACTSC 308 (SCC of 96 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – incest – vulnerable offender and victim – young person – genuine remorse – moral culpability of young person committing sexual offence – trauma caused to victim by criminal justice system – promotion of rehabilitation – individualised justice – supervision conditions necessary – continued engagement with therapeutic support – exclusion from child sex offender register |
Uploaded | Decision Restricted [2025] ACTSC 107CRIMINAL LAW – Pre trial hearing – applications to admit prior sexual history of complainant – prosecution application to adduce evidence of complainant locating naked images of herself on accused phone – accused application to adduce evidence of the complainant taking relevant images of herself and accused walking in on her doing so – relevance of the evidence to complainant’s motive to lie – proper construction of “substantially impair confidence” in reliability of complainant – applications both granted As the judgment is restricted, it is not publicly available. Any enquires about this decision should be directed to Baker J 's chambers. Associate.BakerJ@courts.act.gov.au |
Uploaded | DPP v Do [2025] ACTSC 99 (SCC 242 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – cultivate commercial quantity of controlled plant – offender in custody for over 1 year prior to being sentenced – co-offender sentenced to 10 months and 15 days – principle of parity applied – sentence of full-time custody imposed resulting in offender’s immediate release The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a term of imprisonment of 11 months and 27 days (reduced by 15% on account of his plea of guilty) for an offence of cultivating a commercial quantity of a controlled plant with the intention of selling any of the plant or their products. The co-offender in the matter had previously been sentenced to 10 ½ months imprisonment. The Court noted that there was nothing to materially distinguish between the co-offenders’ involvement in the crime or their subjective circumstances, such that the principle of parity ought to apply. It was therefore appropriate to impose the same sentence on the offender as that of the co-offender, modified only to account for the timing of their pleas. The sentence was backdated to include pre-sentence custody, which resulted in the offender’s immediate release. |
Uploaded | Maliganis Edwards Johnson v P2 (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 104CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to have injunction set aside ab initio – where injunction granted ex parte on the application of a law firm against another lawyer – apprehended breach of confidentiality and Harman undertaking – where court was invited to draw inference as to threat of breach based on coincidence of two events – consideration of content of duty of disclosure on an ex parte application – whether applicant ought to have disclosed the context in which one of the events occurred – whether applicant ought to have made inquiries about the two events before invoking the court’s injunctive jurisdiction ex parte |
Uploaded | DPP v Alexander Waters (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 84 (SCC 179 of 2023)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – incest – act of indecency – offending against daughters – where the offender was in a position of trust – betrayal of parental trust – discount for plea of guilty – offender sentenced to term of imprisonment The ACTSC has sentenced an offender for three offences of committing an act of indecency without consent and one count of incest. The offender committed offences against his two daughters between 15 and 20 years ago. The offender received an overall sentence of 5 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months. |
Uploaded | Bye v Hend [2025] ACTSC 94PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – application to withdraw admissions – where admissions deemed by omission to respond to Notice to Admit Facts – where delay but stage of proceeding permitted withdrawal without prejudice – application granted The Supreme Court has granted leave to a plaintiff to withdraw deemed admissions, arising from a failure to respond to a Notice to Admit Facts. Although the plaintiff delayed bringing the application, the court found the inadvertent mistake should be corrected given the nature of the admissions, their significance to the case, the stage of the proceeding and the lack of injustice to the defendants. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs of the application. |
Uploaded | Walker v Walker (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 91COSTS – Probate proceedings – whether different principles apply in probate proceedings – whether plaintiff had mixed success – whether plaintiff failed on a dominant issue The Supreme Court has made costs orders in a proceeding dealing with probate and family provision matters, where the plaintiff was found to have had mixed success. The Court set out principles guiding the exercise of the discretion in the probate jurisdiction where a party was unsuccessful. The plaintiff was awarded 60% of her costs, to be paid out of the deceased’s estate. |
Uploaded | In the matter of Kinver Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] ACTSC 90TRUSTS – family trust – lost trust deed – evidence of contents – judicial advice as to basis for management and administration of trust – whether trustee justified in managing and administering trust in accordance with terms set out in another deed of settlement concerning a different trust which was executed at the same time for a similar purpose – whether trustee justified in treating as valid the appointment of Kinver Holdings Pty Ltd as trustee – where deed of appointment missing, the terms of the trust are silent as to mode of appointment, and the appointment deed was not registered in accordance with statutory requirements – applicant appointed as trustee pursuant to Trustee Act 1925 (ACT), s 70 for abundant caution The Supreme Court has appointed a corporate trustee of a family trust and provided judicial advice that the trustee is justified in managing and administering that trust in accordance with the terms set out in another document concerning a different trust. The application for judicial advice was brought because the original trust deed was missing and the only copy of it was incomplete, and the deed of appointment of the trustee was also missing. The trust in question was originally set up to deal with assets of a business partnership. The court found that the trustee could justifiably treat the terms of the missing trust deed as being the same as those contained in the trust deed for the other business partner, which had originally been prepared by the same solicitors for the same purpose. There was sufficient evidence to establish that the documents were each created using the same trust template. However, the court found that the applicant would not be justified in proceeding on the basis that it had been validly appointed as trustee, because the deed of appointment was missing, the terms of the trust were silent as to the required mode of appointment, the deed of appointment was not registered in accordance with statutory requirements and the evidence was not otherwise clear that the appointment was validly made at the time. To remove any ongoing uncertainty about the validity of the trustee’s appointment, the court appointed the applicant as trustee with immediate effect. |
Uploaded | DPP v Figura [2024] ACTSC 358 (SCC 177 of 2024; SCC 178 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – driving offences – aggravated furious driving – police pursuit – repeat offender – disqualified driving – breach of conditional liberty – recidivist offender – application of Bugmy principles – drug dependency substantially contributing to commission of offences – prospects of rehabilitation – drug and alcohol treatment order imposed |
Uploaded | DPP v Black (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 89 (SCC 108 of 2023; SCC 271 of 2022)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – historic child sex offences – multiple child victims – sexual intercourse with a person under 10 years old – indecent assault on a female – breach of familial trust – significant harm caused to the victims – offender now an elderly man – consideration of the offender’s physical health – consideration of the impact of imprisonment on the offender’s health – limited expression of remorse – seriousness of offending warrants substantial term of imprisonment The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender for one count of sexual intercourse with a person under 10 years and two counts of indecent assault on a female to a total period of imprisonment of 8 years. The offences were committed between 1968 and 1994. The offender is now elderly and of ill health which necessitated consideration of the potential impact of imprisonment on his physical health. Although prison will be more difficult for him than a younger, healthier man, the seriousness of the offending and the immense harm caused to the victims warranted a substantial term of imprisonment. |
Uploaded | Fletcher (a pseudonym) v Knight (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2025] ACTCA 8Judgment SummaryCRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against ruling admitting unlawfully obtained evidence under s 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – seizure of items under a three-condition warrant – whether requisite belief required to be formed before seizure of property under three-condition warrant EVIDENCE – Cross-appeal against exclusion of evidence – attempted cover up of contravention of Australian law by police – whether attempted cover up relevant to consideration of the “undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the way in which the evidence was obtained” in s 138 of the Evidence Act APPEALS – Appropriate standard of appellate review under s 138 of the Evidence Act – House v The King error not established – whether House v The King error required – whether Sidaros v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 11; 15 ACTLR 64 should be followed – no challenge to decision in Sidaros – correctness standard applied The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal and a cross-appeal concerning the exclusion of evidence under s 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). The appellants had been charged with offences relating to the use of hidden cameras to capture intimate images of their female tenants. A Magistrate found the appellants guilty of various offences, having rejected the appellants’ contentions that evidence found on a laptop computer and a mobile phone should be excluded on the basis that it was illegally obtained. The appellants’ appeal to the Supreme Court was successful in relation to the evidence found on the laptop, but not the evidence found on the mobile phone. The Court of Appeal held that evidence from a mobile phone should be admitted under s 138, but that evidence found on a laptop computer should have been excluded. Critical to the latter was the finding, unchallenged on appeal, that the investigating officer had attempted to cover up the illegality relating to the laptop. |
Uploaded | Millington v Peach (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 21ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – Judicial review of decisions made by ACT Justice and Community Safety Directorate – plaintiff held on remand awaiting trial at the time decisions were made – where plaintiff transferred from prison in ACT to Goulburn Correctional Centre – whether decision-making process accorded with procedures required under Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) – whether denial of procedural fairness HUMAN RIGHTS – whether conduct of authorities at AMC breached plaintiff’s human rights under ss 10, 11, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) – consequences of failure to review decision to transfer plaintiff to a different correctional facility The Supreme Court has declared that the Director-General, Justice and Community Safety Directorate failed to observe review procedures required under the Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT)and that this resulted in a denial of procedural fairness in respect of a transfer decision made by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services. The Court further declared a failure to give proper consideration to the plaintiff’s human rights to be treated in a way that is appropriate for a person who had not been convicted, and to have rights and obligations recognised by law decided by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal after a fair hearing. The proceeding involved segregation and transfer decisions made while the plaintiff was being held on remand at the Alexander Maconochie Centre, which resulted in the plaintiff being transferred to Goulburn Correctional Centre for over 18 months, including being initially segregated for a period of over 2 months. The defendants had accepted that the statutory procedures were not followed but argued that the plaintiff had not suffered any practical injustice. The Court found the errors had materiality and consequences severe enough to constitute breaches of two human rights. Other breaches of human rights alleged by the plaintiff were not established. |
Uploaded | Haire v ACT Integrity Commission [2025] ACTSC 87PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Proceedings for judicial review arising out of investigation by Integrity Commission – alleged denial of procedural fairness in rulings made by Commission and apprehension of bias arising out of alleged refusal to permit cross-examination of a witness during public hearings – public hearings continue and cross-examination subsequently allowed – proceedings discontinued with leave of the court and the question of costs reserved – parties enthusiastically contest question of costs – 26 pages of written submissions – not appropriate for court to determine the merits or examine the position of the parties in significant detail in order to determine question of costs – parties acted reasonably in bringing and defending proceedings – no order as to costs The Supreme Court has made no order as to costs of the proceedings. Proceedings were for judicial review arising from an Integrity Commission investigation alleging denial of procedural fairness and apprehension of bias. The proceedings were discontinued with leave of the court and questions of costs reserved. Parties enthusiastically contested the question of costs but parties acted reasonably in bringing and defending proceedings. It was also not appropriate for the court to determine the merits or examine the position of parties in significant detail in order to determine the question of costs. No order was therefore made. |
Uploaded | BJT v Australian Capital Territory [2025] ACTSC 69EVIDENCE – GENERAL – Application for leave nunc pro tunc to compel documents containing protected confidences – where leave not initially sought due to inadvertence by both parties – where both parties consent – where legislation requires court’s satisfaction of certain matters despite parties’ consent – appropriate to grant leave as sought The Supreme Court has granted leave nunc pro tunc to compel the production and disclosure of documents containing protected confidences relating to the plaintiff. In granting leave, the Supreme Court noted that a review of the relevant legislation may be appropriate, having regard to the legislative requirement for a formal application and decision by the court in circumstances where both parties (crucially including the plaintiff) consent to the production and disclosure. |
Uploaded | DPP v Hagan [2024] ACTSC 257 (SCC 91 of 2024; SCC 92 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – causing a bushfire – damaging property – lighting unauthorised fires – leaving a fire without extinguishing – fires lit in suburban area during bushfire season – assessment of offence of causing bushfire – potential and actual harm and risk to property, persons, and ecosystems – deterrence – substance use – promotion of rehabilitation – drug and alcohol treatment order imposed |
Uploaded | The Owners - Units Plan No 4421 v Geocon Constructors (ACT) Pty Ltd [2025] ACTSC 68PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUBPOENAS – Application for leave to file and issue subpoena on Owners Corporation relating to financial documents and minutes – where moving party claims forensic purpose of subpoena is to inform decision as to whether to apply for security for costs – where no security for costs application on foot – application unsupported by authority and current practice – granting application would encourage fragmentation of proceedings contrary to s 5A of the Court Procedures Act – application refused with costs PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – where approach contemplated by Court Procedures Rules to parties’ costs of complying with subpoenas is in issue – r 6611 contemplates that parties usually bear own costs of compliance CORPORATIONS – UNITS TITLE OWNERS CORPORATION – where Owners Corporation’s capacity to pay costs potentially in issue – different costs considerations for Owners Corporations than for other corporations – special levies and other recovery mechanisms available to ensure liabilities are met The Supreme Court has dismissed, with costs, an application for leave to file and issue a subpoena on the plaintiff, a Units Plan Owners Corporation. The moving party had sought to obtain copies of the Owners Corporation’s financial records over certain years, and its meeting minutes. The forensic purpose of this was said to be to determine whether to file an application for security for costs. |
Uploaded | DPP v Bennett (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 78CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Review – objects of order achieved – rehabilitation achieved – early graduation from treatment order – lengthy period of abstinence – family – skateboarding – ballet – order amended The Supreme Court has graduated a participant from the supervision part of their drug and alcohol treatment order (treatment order), moving him to the good behaviour portion of the order. The participant was graduated from the treatment order early, recognising his achievement of rehabilitation goals and a lengthy period of abstinence. In graduating the participant, the Court celebrated the hard work the participant has undertaken since he was sentenced to the treatment order in 2023, and his achievements in being a dedicated father, partner, and community member. |
Uploaded | DPP v Sullivan (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 80CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – application for adjournment of sentence hearing by prosecution – Crown Tender Bundle provided late – character references filed by accused – prosecution entitlement to provide character evidence in reply – where offender sought longer adjournment to obtain ICOAR – longer adjournment not opposed |
Uploaded | DPP v Kingston [2025] ACTSC 70 (SCC 126 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – using a carriage service to menace/harass/offend – distribution of an intimate image of another person without consent – plea of guilty – ACT and Commonwealth sentencing regimes – sentencing for both ACT and Commonwealth offences – intensive corrections order The ACTSC has sentenced an offender for two offences of using a carriage service to menace/harass/offend and a further offence of distribution of an intimate image of another person without consent. The offending involved the offender sending an explicit video of a victim partaking in sexual intercourse and harassing victims via text message. The offender received an overall sentence of 2 years and 1 month, to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order. The sentence is subject to the conditions that the offender perform 100 hours of community service within 12 months from the commencement of the sentence and continue with psychological counselling. |
Uploaded | Cover v ACT Integrity Commission [2025] ACTSC 71CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – THE NON-JUDICIAL ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT – The legislature – application by Speaker of ACT Legislative Assembly to be heard as amicus or joined as a party – where evidence potentially subject to parliamentary privilege – where parties cannot waive parliamentary privilege – where Speaker submits that parties may not have particular interest in the issue – appropriate to hear Speaker as a representative of the legislature PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – AMICUS CURIAE – Application by Speaker of ACT Legislative Assembly to be heard as amicus or joined as a party – where evidence potentially subject to parliamentary privilege – where Speaker wishes to make submissions on the issue of parliamentary privilege – where hearing Speaker will not substantially add to cost or length of hearing – either course available under Court Procedures Rules or within the court’s inherent jurisdiction – more appropriate to hear Speaker as amicus than to join as party PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Anticipatory application by Speaker that there be no order as to costs unless the court otherwise considers it appropriate – order not made – inappropriate to make anticipatory cost order The Supreme Court has granted an application by the Speaker of the ACT Legislative Assembly to be heard as amicus curiae in this matter. The Speaker had sought to be heard as amicus (or otherwise joined as a party) to make submissions on parliamentary privilege in relation to a report by the ACT Integrity Commission (entitled “Special Report – Operation Luna (Part 1)”). The Supreme Court considered that the Speaker ought to be heard on the issue, noting the admissibility of the Report would be significant to the outcome of the proceedings. The Supreme Court granted the application on the basis that hearing the Speaker would not substantially increase the length or cost of the hearing. |
Uploaded | DPP v Arcus [2024] ACTSC 317CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pre-trial application – application to adduce prior sexual activities of the complainant – leave required to be sought – leave to cross-examine – relevance to facts in issue – relevance of prior sexual history to credibility – leave granted |
Uploaded | DPP v Williams [2025] ACTSC 67 (SCC 241 of 2022)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – attempted aggravated burglary – accessory after the fact to murder – home invasion to obtain drugs and money planned by offender, to be carried out by others including minors – home invasion carried out on wrong premises – victim shot and killed – offender covered-up murder – plea of guilty – offender suffering from PTSD – limited criminal history – evidence of work and treatment in AMC but mixed prospects of rehabilitation – sentence of seven years’ imprisonment imposed – non‑parole period of four years and two months imposed The Supreme Court has published the reasons for sentence of an offender who pled guilty to charges of attempted aggravated burglary and of being an accessory after the fact to murder. The offender had planned a home invasion to obtain money and drugs, to be carried out by others — including minors. However, the home invasion was carried out on the wrong premises, where the victim (not being the intended target of the burglary) was shot and killed. In sentencing, the Supreme Court took into account a range of factors, including the offender’s plea of guilty, mental condition, limited criminal history, evidence of work and improvement in the AMC, and lack of significant remorse until the time of sentence. The Supreme Court found that the were mixed prospects for the offender’s rehabilitation. |
Uploaded | DPP v Nguyen [2025] ACTSC 54 (SCC 6 of 2024; SCC 7 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – driving offences – serious examples of aggravated robbery and aggravated driving – car-jacking – use of force and offensive weapon – Bugmy principles not enlivened due to limited information – absence of remorse or insight – fulltime imprisonment imposed The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to 4 years and 8 months imprisonment for offences of aggravated robbery, aggravated furious/reckless/dangerous driving, and driving while disqualified. The Court found that due to the seriousness of the offending, lack of remorse and insight from the offender, significant impacts on the victim, and community safety, the only appropriate sentencing option was the imposition of a lengthy sentence with a nonparole period. |
Uploaded | Kennedy v Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 66PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – Solicitor on the record – party for whom solicitor acting non-compliant with court orders – withdrawal of solicitor on the record two days before directions hearing – failure by solicitor to comply with rule 2806 of the Court Procedures Rules – adjournment granted to unrepresented plaintiff – conduct of solicitor referred to the Law Society The Supreme Court has granted an adjournment to an unrepresented plaintiff and referred conduct of a solicitor who had represented the plaintiff to the Law Society. The solicitor withdrew from representing the plaintiff without compliance with r 2806 of the Court Procedures Rules two days before a directions hearing. |
Uploaded | Higgins v Pretorius [2025] ACTSC 64CIVIL LAW – NEGLIGENCE – Personal injury – where Defendant struck plaintiff to the side of the head with rubber mallet – Defendant charged and pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm – Defendant admits liability for assault – Defendant denies each head of damage claimed – general and aggravated damages – whether Defendant’s behaviour characterised as deliberate and unjustified conduct – exemplary damages – whether Defendant was “substantially punished” through criminal proceedings – whether conduct of Defendant during the proceedings amounted to contumelious disregard for the Plaintiff’s position – special damages – whether claim was too remote from injury and conduct – foreseeability of the injury and claim – damages awarded The Court has awarded damages to the Plaintiff for an injury sustained when the Defendant struck her on the side of the head with a rubber mallet during a dispute over the nature strip between their houses. The Defendant did not contest liability, having previously been charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm for the act, although did deny each claimed head of damages. The plaintiff suffered significant injury, damage, and loss because of the attack, including requiring multiple ketamine infusions each year to manage the pain, each of which require her to be admitted to hospital for a period of up to 12 days. The Plaintiff claimed general, exemplary, aggravated, and special damages, as well as economic loss and treatment and travel costs. The Court awarded damages under each heading claimed, except for exemplary damages, where the Court was not satisfied that the Defendant’s conduct amounted to contumelious disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights. |
Uploaded | Pavey-Dray v Weomany Pty Ltd trading as Zaab Braddon [2025] ACTSC 65CIVIL LAW – NEGLIGENCE – Personal injury – trip and fall on staircase – heel of plaintiff’s stiletto caught on an ‘unfinished’ step while exiting First Defendant’s restaurant – whether First Defendant bore liability for the Plaintiff’s injury where it shared occupation of staircase with another business – where Plaintiff fell down side of stairs occupied by other business – no delineation of staircase between businesses – First Defendant removed tiles from whole of staircase and failed to replace or make good the stairs – by removing tiles First Defendant occupied and altered the whole of the area – First Defendant bore liability for injury – whether First Defendant negligent in failing to take steps to minimise risk of injury to the Plaintiff – whether risk of injury was foreseeable – First Defendant ought to have known that pitted and uneven tread on stairs posed a risk of tripping – whether contributory negligence established where Plaintiff wore stiletto heels – causation – where pre-existing injury all but resolved at time of fall – damages awarded The Court has found the First Defendant liable in negligence for an injury sustained by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s stiletto heel caught on an ‘unfinished’ step while leaving the First Defendant’s restaurant, and as a result she fell down the stairs onto the footpath. The staircase was shared by the First Defendant and another business, and the First Defendant argued that the Plaintiff fell on the side of the stairs leased by the other business. By removing the tiles from the whole of the staircase years earlier, the Court found the First Defendant occupied the entire staircase, and therefore assumed liability. The Court held that the First Defendant breached its duty of care to the Plaintiff by failing to address the defects in the stairs, and held that but for the First Defendant’s negligence, the Plaintiff would not have fallen. The First Defendant was unsuccessful in its arguments of contributory negligence and third-party liability. Damages were awarded to the Plaintiff. |
Uploaded | DPP v Gardner (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 41 (SCC 77 of 2020; SCC 153 of 2021)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – breach of good behaviour orders attached to suspended sentence orders –– offender on pathway to rehabilitation – breach offences of low objective seriousness – family considerations – offender is full-time carer for young daughter – illicit substance use – good behaviour orders cancelled – offender resentenced to suspended terms of imprisonment The Supreme Court has resentenced an offender following breaches of his good behaviour orders which were imposed upon him as part of suspended sentence orders. The Court was satisfied that the offender has made considerable progress in his rehabilitative journey and the breach offences were reflective of the ongoing challenge that illicit substance use presented to the offender, compounded by the family tragedy he had recently experienced. The Court cancelled the existing good behaviour orders and resentenced the offender to terms of imprisonment to be immediately suspended upon the offender entering undertakings to be of good behaviour. |
Uploaded | Murphy v The King [2025] ACTCA 10APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – sentence involving multiple sexual offences, actual and grievous bodily harm, and common assault – multiple victims – whether sentence manifestly excessive – where backdating error The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal against sentences imposed for various offences including sexual intercourse without consent, inflicting actual bodily harm and common assault. The appellant relied on six grounds of appeal which in summary related to complaints that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and that the primary judge erred in his assessment of objective seriousness. Parties also agreed the primary judge had been provided with the incorrect number of days served by way of pre-sentence custody such that 19 days had not been accounted for. The Court found that the error could be rectified pursuant to s 37O of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT). |
Uploaded | 86 Candles Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2025] ACTSC 34CIVIL LAW – AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW – Access Canberra – declaratory relief – statutory compensation – natural justice – investigation into business conduct – complaints about a business – procedural fairness – response to media enquiries – media statements – media reports – functions of the Commissioner for Fair Trading – exercise of statutory functions – grounds not pleaded |
Uploaded | Kember v The Queen (No 4) [2025] ACTCA 9Judgment SummaryAPPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Application to withdraw plea of guilty after conviction – whether insufficient evidence to prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – plea of guilty encompasses acceptance of proof of each necessary element to a charge – sufficient evidence to support plea of guilty – whether denying leave would amount to miscarriage of justice – whether primary judge’s decision attended by error of fact or law – consideration of elements of each charge – error not established – no miscarriage of justice – application for leave to withdraw guilty pleas dismissed APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – child pornography offences – whether sentence was manifestly excessive – whether primary judge erred in failing to consider alternatives to custodial sentence – whether offender’s lack of prior convictions and the low objective seriousness of offending warranted reduced sentence – whether primary judge failed to consider extra curial punishment – where primary judge characterised offences as falling within mid to low range of objective seriousness – such a characterisation does not diminish the significant criminality of the offending – full-time custody warranted to reflect the seriousness of offending – no error in primary judge’s balance of factors favourable to appellant against the importance of deterrence and denunciation – appeal dismissed The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence in respect of a 3-year term of imprisonment imposed for multiple child pornography offences. Leave to withdraw guilty pleas after conviction was refused as the agreed facts were sufficient to establish the elements of each offence, and no miscarriage of justice would arise by allowing the pleas to stand. Regarding the sentence, the CA found no error in the emphasis upon deterrence and denunciation given the nature of the offending. There was no requirement to expressly refer to every piece of evidence and every alternative sentencing option in the circumstances of the submissions made, no extra-curial punishment was present, and the sentence was not otherwise manifestly excessive. |
Uploaded | DPP v Aghahosseini [2024] ACTSC 237 (SCC 234 of 2024; SCC 138 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – Sentence – Sexual intercourse without consent – theft – robbery – burglary – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – escape – obtaining property by deception – whether offender’s moral culpability reduced by reason of mental illness – consideration of the discount to be allowed where an offender pleads guilty The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a period of imprisonment of 6 years, 1 month, with a non-parole period of 4 years for numerous offences. The offender was convicted for sexual intercourse without consent, and multiple counts of theft, robbery and burglary. The offender was also convicted for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, obtaining property by deception and escape. The Court found that the offences were variously attributable to the offender’s poor mental health and a motivation to fund his illicit substance abuse. In the context of numerous offences, the Court noted it was appropriate for some sentences to be served concurrently, while other sentences should be served cumulatively. |
Uploaded | DPP v Ierfone [2025] ACTSC 60 (SCC 16 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse without consent – act of indecency without consent – finding of guilt at trial – no criminal history – strong protective factors in the community – good prospects of rehabilitation – period of full-time imprisonment necessary to achieve sentencing purposes – partly suspended sentence imposed The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender after a jury found him guilty of one count of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent and one count of committing an act of indecency without consent. The offender was sentenced to 2 years and 4 months of imprisonment to be suspended after 4 months upon him entering an undertaking to be of good behaviour order. The offender had no criminal history and strong subjective circumstances, namely a supportive family and a history of ongoing employment, which supported a finding that the offender had good prospects of rehabilitation. |
Uploaded | Decision Restricted [2025] ACTSC 58CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for orders restraining misuse of confidential information – where application brought ex parte – where defendant obtained information under obligation of implied undertaking – whether serious question to be tried – balance of convenience As the judgment is restricted, it is not publicly available. Any enquires about this decision should be directed to McCallum CJ’s chambers. Associate.McCallumCJ@courts.act.gov.au |
Uploaded | DPP v Massey [2025] ACTSC 50 (SCC 276 of 2024; 277 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – property and dishonesty offences – application of Bugmy, Verdins, Henry principles – cycle of addiction and offending – weight of rehabilitation in consideration of sentencing factors – demonstrated capability to rehabilitate – different sentencing approach required – insight and remorse to offending – drug and alcohol treatment order imposed The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a drug and alcohol treatment order (treatment order) for property and dishonesty offences committed in mid-2023. The Court considered the offender’s history of addiction and offending, their childhood circumstances, mental health conditions, and early introduction to drug use in assessing the sentence to be imposed. The Court found that in the offender’s circumstances, a different approach to sentencing was required to allow the offender to rehabilitate from drugs and from offending, and to better facilitate community safety. The offender will be subject to the treatment and supervision portion of the treatment order for 18 months, following which they will be subject to a suspended sentence and good behaviour order for a period of 2 years. |
Uploaded | DPP v Roberts [2025] ACTSC 53 (SCC 324 of 2024)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – indecent assault on male – historical offences – teacher and pupil – recidivist child sexual abuse offender – advanced age and ill health of offender – delay in prosecution not mitigatory so as to override other sentencing purposes – good character of offender – s 34A Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) – otherwise good character – sentence of imprisonment imposed with partial suspension The Supreme Court has sentenced a recidivist child sexual abuse offender to 2 years and 8 months imprisonment, to be suspended after 12 months upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order. The offender was sentenced for three charges relating to historical sexual offences committed against a child in the 1980s. The Court considered no punishment other than imprisonment was appropriate. While submitted on behalf of the offender that the delay in prosecution, advanced age, and ill health could be mitigatory, the Court found it was not so mitigatory as to override the other sentencing purposes. |
Uploaded | McIver v ACT (No 2) [2025] ACTCA 7CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS – HUMAN RIGHTS – Costs – whether proceedings a matter of public importance, involving conduct of Territory previously found to be unlawful – whether “mixed outcome” in proceedings – whether commonality of work involved in hearing claims together – whether judgment assisting in the resolution of other claims ought to have positive costs consequences – outcome of appeal not mixed – matter of public importance raised but brought for pecuniary gain – no departure from the usual rule as to costs The Court of Appeal has ordered costs to be paid by the appellants in these proceedings in appeal in which they contended that breaches of human rights gave rise to entitlement to compensation. The appellants argued that a mixed outcome occurred on appeal, that the Court’s resources were saved by the hearing of the claims together, and that the appeal raised an issue of public importance. The Court considered these arguments and decided that a departure from the usual rule as to costs was not warranted. |
Uploaded | Jolley v Construction Occupations Registrar [2025] ACTSC 55BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Rectification orders issued to licensees under Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act 2004 (ACT) – whether rectification order can be issued to nominee of corporate licensee – it can BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Rectification orders – limitation period – order must be issued within 10 years of act that caused contravention – Construction Occupations Registrar issues order within limitation period – application for review – limitation period expires while application for review on foot – whether ACAT precluded from confirming, varying or setting aside and making a new order – it is not The Supreme Court has given reasons for dismissing most grounds of appeal from a decision of the ACAT, and allowing certain others. The dispute concerned the validity of rectification orders issued under Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act 2004 (ACT) by the Construction Occupations Registrar – among other findings, the court found that rectification orders can be issued to nominees of corporate licensees and that ACAT are not precluded from reviewing rectification orders that are issued within a limitation period but where such period expires while the review is on foot. |
Uploaded | DPP v Brooks (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 45 (SCC 57 of 2024; SCC 372 of 2024; SCC 194 of 2011)CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Pilot Circle Sentencing List – Elders and Respected Persons Panel – aggravated robbery – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – serious example of an aggravated robbery – imposition of suspended sentences imposed when offender was a child – breach of good behaviour order – failure to comply with supervision – childhood disadvantage – offender assessed as institutionalised – extensive criminal history The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender to a total period of imprisonment of 5 years and 3 months. The offender was sentenced for the offences of aggravated robbery and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, as well as having suspended sentences of imprisonment imposed due to his failure to comply with the obligations of the attached good behaviour orders in 2015. The offender was sentenced in the Pilot Circle Sentencing List. The offender had a disadvantaged childhood and was assessed as being institutionalised. |
|
Uploaded 24 February 2025 | In the matter of an application by Leanne Cover (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 251COSTS – where plaintiff unsuccessful in application for urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain publication of special report prepared by the Integrity Commission – usual rule that unsuccessful applicant for an interlocutory injunction should pay the defendant’s costs – court’s discretion not fettered by usual rule – where plaintiff constrained in presentation of injunction application by confidentiality regime imposed by defendant. |
|
Uploaded 24 February 2025 | Walker v Chamberlains Law Firm Pty Ltd [2024] ACTSC 76CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to set aside subpoena to accountant – failed joint venture – where plaintiffs sue solicitors for failure to protect them against financial risks of joint venture – financial position of the plaintiff entities plainly in issue. |