binäre optionen selbstversuch Harry Venice has provided a case-note on Hughes v R (on tendency) and a summary of the changes to the Bail Act that come into operation later this year. They are available on the Publications page.
More from: new cases
follow Here is the decision of McMillan J in the matter of Stewart v Magistrates’ Court of Victoria  VSC 110 (15 March 2017). Members should acquaint themselves with the operation of the after hours bail court and the challenges it presents.
The High Court today delivered judgment in IMM v The Queen  HCA 14 – an appeal from the NT Supreme Court. In it, the Court held that when determining the “probative value” of evidence under the Evidence Act, a trial judge must proceed on the assumption that the jury will accept the evidence, and as such it follows that no question as to credibility or reliability of the evidence can arise.
However the Court also held, by majority, that evidence from a complainant adduced to show an accused’s sexual interest can generally have limited, if any, probative value.
The Council of Law Reporting in Victoria is pleased to be partnering with BarNet, the producers of JADE, and Little William Bourke to provide the widest dissemination of the Reports at the lowest cost through a dedicated website.
The website provides a full statement advising of a new publishing arrangement and the appointment of a new editor for the Reports. The Council is also delighted with the appointment of Peter Willis SC as the new Editor.
Members should note the position taken by the DPP. Prosecutors will be instructed that the median sentence rationale has not practical application and that the mandatory non-parole period provisions should likewise not be applied. Here is the DPP’s letter of 20 November 2015.
In DPP v Walters (a pseudonym)  VSCA 303, the Court of Appeal held the baseline sentencing provisions to be unworkable. The appeal was brought by the DPP against a sentence said to be manifestly inadequate due to a failure to apply the baseline provisions. Whilst acknowledging the purpose of the legislation to effect a certain statistical outcome in sentences over time, the Court held that, in the individual sentencing task, “Parliament’s stated intention cannot be given effect to because the provisions contain no mechanism for its implementation and it is beyond the function of the Court to devise one.”
Members should note that the Court only had before it a Crown appeal against sentence. Stay tuned for what practical effect this decision may have in other cases.
Judicial College – Sentencing Manual extensively updated to reflect recent Court of Appeal cases
Topics updated include:
- Victim impact statements
- Offences involving family violence
- Revelation of offences not known to police – Doran discount
- Child pornography offences
- Drug trafficking and actual or potential harm
Find out more here.
Members should be aware of today’s decision in DPP (Vic) v Quick and Anor  VSCA 273. The Court of Appeal found the County Court to have power to reinstate charges previously stuck out (in the Magistrates’ Court) according to the justice of the particular case.
Here is a case note by member Jason Harkess.
The Judicial College Sentencing Manual has been updated to incorporate the guidance provided by Lasry J in The Queen v IRT  VSC 372, the first decision involving baseline sentencing in Victoria.
The DPP has lodged an appeal against the sentence imposed in IRT.
Members are reminded that counsel appearing on a plea are obliged to identify parts of Victim Impact Statements that are inadmissible. Here is the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Luciano  VSCA 173. Look particularly at -. Note that only admissible parts of a VIS may be permitted to be read aloud in court (section 8Q of the Sentencing Act 1991).
Osborn JA granted leave to appeal on 15 April 2015 in the matter of Luciano v The Queen  VSCA 69. It raises issues about how the courts should deal with arguably inadmissible material in Victim Impact Statements. Here Honour Judge Hannan referred to this decision in her CPD on 4 May.
The Court of Appeal handed down its first ever guideline judgment on 22 December 2014.
All counsel should be aware of this important decision, which provides guidelines that courts must take into consideration in relation to Community Corrections Orders.
The CBA is happy to share material written by members for others to read, particularly summaries of recent cases. Summaries of 2 recent cases are now included on our ‘Publications’ page. Thanks to Harry Venice for his work:
- Velkoski v The Queen  VSCA 121 about tendency evidence
- Honeysett v The Queen  HCA 29 about the limits of expert evidence
The paper and powerpoint from last night’s CPD by Jane Taupin are available on the Publications page. Jane’s book, ‘Introduction to Forensic DNA Evidence for Criminal Justice Professionals’ (2013) is available on Amazon and at other online booksellers.
Also, note that the High Court last week decided Fitzgerald v The Queen  HCA 28 on the question of whether the presence of DNA alone could satisfy a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was present during an offence. The conviction was quashed.
Members should be aware of the recent Court of Appeal decision of Velkoski v The Queen  VSCA 121 which has application to cases involving tendency and co-incidence evidence.
The Judicial College of Victoria has made changes to the following directions in the Criminal Charge Book due to the Court of Appeal decision:
4.16.2 – Charge: Tendency Evidence (General Charge)
4.16.3 – Charge: Tendency Evidence (Sexual Interest Evidence)
4.16.4 – Charge: Tendency Evidence (Multiple sexual complaints)
4.16.6 – Charge: Coincidence Evidence
The UN Human Rights Committee has responded to the 2009 ‘communication’ of Corinna Horvath about her treatment by Victoria Police. Here is a copy of the UN Committee’s ‘views’ of 27 March 2014. This matter has received some substantial media attention in recent days.
The Victorian Criminal Proceedings Manual on the JCV website has been updated to incorporate recent cases.
- 220.127.116.11 – ‘Between Dates’ particulars
- 4.4.5 – Determination of committal proceedings
- 11.5.1 – Change of plea during trial
- 18.5.2 – Correction of errors in the record
Also, Recent case summaries in the Victorian Sentencing Manual have been updated. The summaries provide guidance on current sentencing practices.
The High Court today in Barbaro v R held, by majority, that the practice in Victoria of permitting or requiring counsel for the prosecution, in certain circumstances, to make a submission as to the available range of sentences for an offence is wrong in principle and should cease. See the High Court summary here or the full report on Austlii.
Bell J, in his customary comprehensive style has given a significant judgment about the threshold questions for bail and how they relate to the various human rights reflected by the Charter. In particular, he discusses the relationship between unacceptable risk and show cause. Congratulations to members involved.
CRIMINAL LAW – bail – human rights – fundamental common law rights and liberties – whether applicants represent unacceptable risk – whether applicants showed cause why detention not justified – imposition of conditions compatibly with human rights of applicants – onus of proof with respect to unacceptable risk in show-cause situations – bail of child-accused – ‘presumption of innocence’, ‘liberty’, ‘freedom of movement’ – ‘unacceptable risk’, ‘exceptional circumstances’, ‘show cause’ – Bail Amendment Act 2010 (Vic) – Bail Amendment Act 2013 (Vic) – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 4–5, Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ss 12, 21 and 25.
Speaker(s): Prof Arie Freiberg
1 CPD point: Substantive Law
Time: 5.15pm – 6.15pm
Where: Neil McPhee Room, Level 1, Owen Dixon Chambers East, 205 William St, Melbourne