DOCSLIB.ORG

Corporate Criminal Responsibility Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Corporate Criminal Responsibility Final Report CORPORATE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FINAL REPORT ALRC Report 136 April 2020 This Final Report reflects the law as at 1 April 2020. The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) was established on 1 January 1975 and operates in accordance with the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth). The office of the ALRC is at Level 4, Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts Building, 119 North Quay, Brisbane QLD 4000. Postal Address: PO Box 12953, George Street QLD 4003 Telephone: within Australia (07) 3248 1224 International: +61 7 3248 1224 Email: [email protected] Website: www.alrc.gov.au ALRC publications are available to view or download free of charge on the ALRC website: www.alrc.gov.au/publications. If you require assistance, please contact the ALRC. ISBN: 978-0-6482087-8-5 Commission Reference: ALRC Report 136, 2020 © Commonwealth of Australia 2020 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in whole or part, subject to acknowledgement of the source, for your personal, non- commercial use or use within your organisation. Requests for further authorisation should be directed to the ALRC. Printed by Fineline Print & Copy Service, NSW The Hon Christian Porter MP Attorney-General of Australia Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 30 April 2020 Dear Attorney-General Review of the Corporate Criminal Responsibility On 10 April 2019, the Australian Law Reform Commission received Terms of Reference to undertake an inquiry into corporate criminal responsibility. On behalf of the Members of the Commission involved in this Inquiry, and in accordance with the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth), I am pleased to present you with the Final Report on this reference, Corporate Criminal Responsibility (ALRC Report 136, 2020). Yours sincerely, The Hon Justice SC Derrington President Contents Contents 1 Terms of Reference 5 Participants 7 Acknowledgements 11 Recommendations 13 Outcomes 19 Glossary 21 Figures and Tables 23 1. Introduction 27 The Inquiry 27 Related inquiries 29 Economic contribution of corporations 30 Scope of this Inquiry 31 Focus of the Inquiry 36 Investigating corporate crime 44 Committal hearings 45 Process of reform 47 2. The Commonwealth Criminal Code 49 Introduction 49 The development of a Code 49 Chapter 1 of the Code 52 Chapter 2 of the Code 52 Part 2.2 of the Criminal Code — Offence structure 53 Part 2.5 of the Criminal Code — Corporate criminal responsibility 56 The exclusion of Part 2.5 from Commonwealth statutes and the alternative attribution model 66 2 Corporate Criminal Responsibility 3. Corporate Criminal Responsibility — the Data 69 Introduction 69 About the data 70 Commonwealth criminal law as it applies to corporations 73 Criminal prosecutions of corporate actors 96 Difficulties in accessing quantitative data relating to corporate criminal responsibility 117 4. Foundations of Corporate Criminal Responsibility 123 Introduction 123 The potential for misconduct in a corporate context 124 Capacity of a corporation to be criminally responsible 130 Historical development of methods of corporate attribution 139 Application of procedural and evidential rules to corporations 151 5. Principled Criminalisation 167 Introduction 167 Methods of corporate regulation in Australia 168 Effective corporate regulation 177 Principled criminalisation 178 Infringement notices and corporate criminal responsibility 205 Enhanced processes to facilitate principled recourse to corporate criminal responsibility 211 6. Corporate Attribution 217 Introduction 217 Single legislative attribution method for corporations 220 Attributing physical elements 224 Attributing fault — A single model 227 Option 1 — Modification of Part 2.5 233 Option 2 — A TPA Model approach 250 Aggregation 256 Reasonable precautions defence 259 Negligence and mistake of fact (strict liability) 266 Liability for civil penalties 267 Contents 3 7. Offences Specific to Corporations 269 Introduction 269 System of conduct offences 270 Failure to prevent offences 296 Duty-based offences 321 8. Sentencing Corporations 329 Introduction 329 Sentencing corporations: purposes and principles 331 Sentencing factors 336 Non-monetary penalties 347 A national debarment regime 362 Informed sentencing 366 Areas for further consideration 370 9. Individual Liability Mechanisms 379 Introduction 379 Corporate misconduct: role of individual liability 381 Corporate misconduct: modes of individual liability 387 Individual liability in the largest corporations 418 Striking the right balance on individual liability 434 Future directions 441 10. Transnational Business 445 Introduction 445 Failure to prevent offences for transnational crimes 447 The need for a holistic review of transnational crime 458 Priorities for further inquiry and consultation 468 A roadmap for Government 491 11. Further Reforms 493 Introduction 493 Deferred prosecution agreements 494 Deferred enforcement agreements for civil penalties 503 Whistleblower protections 505 Illegal phoenix activity 511 Appendix A Preliminary Consultations May–October 2019 517 Appendix B Consultations November 2019–March 2020 521 Appendix C Discussion Paper Proposals and Questions 525 Appendix D Comments on Terms of Reference 533 Appendix E Submissions to Discussion Paper 535 Appendix F Primary Sources 537 Appendix G Comparison of Attribution Methods 551 Appendix H Illustrative Amendments to Part 2.5 of the Criminal Code 553 Appendix I Recommendations 4–1, 5–1, 6–1, and 6–8 of ALRC Report No 103 559 Appendix J Example Extended Management Liability Provisions 563 Terms of Reference Review of Australia’s corporate criminal liability regime I, Christian Porter, Attorney-General of Australia, having regard to: y the corporate criminal responsibility regime in Part 2.5 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code contained in Schedule 1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (‘the Code’); and, y the complexity of this regime and its challenges as a mechanism for attributing corporate criminal liability; REFER to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) for inquiry and report, pursuant to s 20(1) of the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth), a consideration of whether, and if so what, reforms are necessary or desirable to improve Australia’s corporate criminal liability regime. In particular, the ALRC should review the following matters: y the policy rationale for Part 2.5 of the Code; y the efficacy of Part 2.5 of the Code as a mechanism for attributing corporate criminal liability; y the availability of other mechanisms for attributing corporate criminal responsibility and their relative effectiveness, including mechanisms which could be used to hold individuals (eg senior corporate office holders) liable for corporate misconduct; y the appropriateness and effectiveness of criminal procedure laws and rules as they apply to corporations; and y options for reforming Part 2.5 of the Code or other relevant legislation to strengthen and simplify the Commonwealth corporate criminal responsibility regime. Scope of the reference The ALRC should have regard to existing reports relevant to Australia’s corporate accountability system, including reports on: corporate misconduct; corporate criminal law; corporate governance; court procedure which applies in corporate enforcement actions; and law enforcement arrangements relating to corporate misconduct/crime. The reports which the ALRC should consider should include but not be limited to the: y 2019 Final report of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry; and 6 Corporate Criminal Responsibility y 2017 report of the ASIC Enforcement Review Taskforce. This review would encompass consideration of: y comparative corporate criminal responsibility regimes in relevant foreign jurisdictions; y potential application of Part 2.5 of the Code to extraterritorial offences by corporations; y consideration of possible alternatives to expanding the scope and application of Part 2.5 of the Code, such as introducing or strengthening other statutory regimes for corporate criminal liability; y consideration of whether Part 2.5 of the Code needs to incorporate provisions enabling senior corporate officers to be held liable for misconduct by corporations; y options for reforming Part 2.5 of the Code (or other corporate liability regimes) to facilitate implementation of the recommendations made by, or to address issues highlighted by, the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry and by the ASIC Enforcement Review Taskforce. Noting the Federal Court of Australia’s criminal jurisdiction, the review should consider the effectiveness of present Commonwealth criminal procedural laws with a focus on their interaction with state and territory criminal procedural law, particularly in relation to committal hearings. Consultation The ALRC should consult widely with: law enforcement authorities charged with policing and prosecuting corporate criminal conduct; courts; and other stakeholders with expertise and experience in the corporate law and white collar crime sectors. The ALRC should produce consultation documents to ensure experts, stakeholders and the community have the opportunity to contribute to the review. Timeframe for reporting The ALRC should provide its report to the Attorney-General by 30 April 2020. Participants Australian Law Reform Commission President The Hon Justice S C Derrington, Federal Court of Australia Part-time Commissioners The Hon Justice R J Bromwich, Federal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Critical Analysis of the Law Surrounding 'One Punch' Killings
    Bond University DOCTORAL THESIS Critical analysis of the law surrounding "one punch" killings Burgess, Craig Award date: 2016 Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LAW SURROUNDING ‘ONE PUNCH’ KILLINGS AUGUST 1, 2016 CRAIG NEILSON BURGESS Abstract This thesis investigates the modern day tragedy of needless loss of life through so-called ‘one punch’ killings. Research has identified more than 90 deaths attributed to so-called ‘one punch’ assaults in Australia between 2000 and 2012. This thesis takes a critical examination of recent legislative moves in Australia and in some overseas jurisdictions that tighten the liability of offenders and the trend of concentrating on the consequences of the crime rather than looking towards the criminality of the offender. It also examines the efficacy of introducing new offences that abolish the test of foresight regarding the outcome of a fatal assault, in order to deal with the problem of mainly alcohol-fuelled violence. The thesis then considers whether there is a justifiable reason to amend the law and whether or not the range of existing offences which already carry high maxima, more fairly and justly labels the crime for the benefit of the offender, the victim and the community.
    [Show full text]
  • Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020
    Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020 Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 16 October 2020 Telephone +61 2 6246 3788 • Fax +61 2 6248 0639 Email [email protected] GPO Box 1989, Canberra ACT 2601, DX 5719 Canberra 19 Torrens St Braddon ACT 2612 Law Council of Australia Limited ABN 85 005 260 622 www.lawcouncil.asn.au Table of Contents About the Law Council of Australia ............................................................................... 3 Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 5 Overview of proposed amendments.............................................................................. 6 Money laundering offences (Schedule 1) ...................................................................... 6 New ‘tiers’ of offences for high-value money laundering............................................. 6 Proof of predicate offences ........................................................................................ 6 Fault elements for attempt offences in relation to Division 400 ................................... 8 Definition of ‘deals with’ in relation to money or property ............................................ 8 Partial defence of ‘mistake of fact as to value’ ........................................................... 9 Obligations in covert investigations (Schedule
    [Show full text]
  • Final Submission to the NSW Law Reform Commission's Review Of
    Final Submission to the NSW Law Reform Commission’s Review of Consent and Knowledge of Consent in Relation to Sexual Assault Offences Andrew Dyer* 1 February 2019 Introduction 1. In this submission, I respond to most of the questions posed by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission (NSWLRC) in its recent Consultation Paper1 regarding s 61HA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and related issues. It must be noted immediately, however, that on 1 December 2018 the Criminal Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Abuse) Act 2018 came into force. This means that s 61HA no longer deals with consent and knowledge of non-consent for the purposes of the sexual assault offences for which the Crimes Act provides. Because s 61HE now regulates such matters (indeed, as the Consultation Paper notes,2 s 61HE applies also to the new sexual touching and sexual act offences created by ss 61KC, 61KD, 61KE and 61KF of the Act), I will refer in this submission to the terms of this new section when making recommendations for reform. 2. Consistently with the views that I expressed in my preliminary submission to this Review, no radical changes should be made to s 61HE.3 However, after reading the Consultation Paper and many of the preliminary submissions, and after considering the terms of the new section, I do accept that it is desirable to make certain alterations to that section in addition to the one that I advocated in my initial submission.4 It is possible that few of the changes to s 61HE that I argue for here would alter the law in this area; however, in my submission, they would clarify the scope of s 61HE – and the manner in which it operates.
    [Show full text]
  • High Court of Australia
    HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA GLEESON CJ, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN AND KIEFEL JJ THE QUEEN APPELLANT AND WEI TANG RESPONDENT The Queen v Tang [2008] HCA 39 28 August 2008 M5/2008 ORDER 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Special leave to cross-appeal on the first and second grounds in the proposed notice of cross-appeal granted. Cross-appeal on those grounds treated as instituted, heard instanter, and dismissed. 3. Special leave to cross-appeal on the third ground in the proposed notice of cross-appeal refused. 4. Set aside orders 3, 4 and 5 of the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria made on 29 June 2007 and, in their place, order that the appeal to that Court against conviction be dismissed. 5. The appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the application for special leave to appeal and of the appeal to this Court. 6. Remit the matter to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria for that Court's consideration of the application for leave to appeal against sentence. On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria 2. Representation W J Abraham QC with R R Davis for the appellant (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)) N J Young QC with M J Croucher and K L Walker for the respondent (instructed by Slades & Parsons Solicitors) Interveners D M J Bennett QC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth with S P Donaghue intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor) B W Walker SC with R Graycar intervening on behalf of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (instructed by Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
    [Show full text]
  • Secrecy Laws and Open Government in Australia
    Secrecy Laws and Open Government in Australia REPORT REPORT 112 December 2009 This Report reflects the law as at 11 November 2009 © Commonwealth of Australia 2009 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in whole or part, subject to acknowledgement of the source, for your personal, non- commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), all other rights are reserved. Requests for further authorisation should be directed by letter to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Copyright Law Branch, Attorney-General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or electronically via www.ag.gov.au/cca. ISBN- 978-0-9807194-0-6 Commission Reference: ALRC Report 112 The Australian Law Reform Commission was established on 1 January 1975 by the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 (Cth) and reconstituted by the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth). The office of the ALRC is at Level 25, 135 King Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. All ALRC publications can be made available in a range of accessible formats for people with disabilities. If you require assistance, please contact the ALRC. Telephone: within Australia (02) 8238 6333 International +61 2 8238 6333 TTY: (02) 8238 6379 Facsimile: within Australia (02) 8238 6363 International +61 2 8238 6363 E-mail: [email protected] Homepage: www.alrc.gov.au Printed by Ligare The Hon Robert McClelland MP Attorney-General of Australia Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 11 December 2009 Dear Attorney-General Review of Secrecy Laws On 5 August 2008, you issued terms of reference for the ALRC to undertake a comprehensive review of secrecy laws and related issues.
    [Show full text]
  • And the Use of HIV-Related Criminal Offences in the Governance of HIV in New South Wales
    Lost in Transmission: Law's 'Insubordinate Openness' and the use of HIV-Related Criminal Offences in the Governance of HIV in New South Wales. David Carter Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws (Research) University of New South Wales 2011 THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Dissertation Sheet Surname or Family name: Carter First name: David Other name/s: James Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: LLM School: Law Faculty: Law Title: Lost in Transmission: Law’s ‘insubordinate openness’ and the use of HIV-Related Criminal Offences in the Governance of HIV in New South Wales. Recently, the HIV sector in New South Wales has developed a strong interest in HIV-related criminal offences which have been vigorously contested in policy and public health literature. This research attempts to move beyond specific issues of public policy or doctrinal development and situates the imposition of HIV-related criminal offences as a part of a broader question of the nature of law itself, its place in contemporary approaches to regulation and understandings of power and importantly its relationship with other techniques of governance such as the disciplines of public health and health promotion in particular. The central argument of this research is that law is mischaracterised in current debates about the governance of HIV. In characterising the nature of law ‘itself’ and the interplay between legal-juridical power on the one hand and bio- and disciplinary power on the other, an anaemic characterisation of the law has led to a kind of knee-jerk antinomianism which risks embedding or simply re-creating the problems which the entire law reform and public health project sets out to solve.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of the Constitutional
    AN EXAMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS FOR THE REGULATION OF RACIAL VILIFICATION IN AUSTRALIA Daniel Meagher A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Law University of New South Wales November 2006 ABSTRACT This thesis involves an analysis of the constitutional and legal frameworks for the regulation of racial vilification in Australia. In doing so, it has two aims. First, I wish to discern the constitutional parameters for Australian laws where political communication forms part of the conduct sought to be regulated. The High Court has recognised that the Australian Constitution contains an implied right to freedom of political communication (‘implied freedom’). It operates to invalidate legislative and executive action which impairs the effective operation of our system of constitutional government. The scope of the implied freedom remains unclear, however. There is no consensus on the High Court as to what constitutes ‘political communication’ or when a law can be said to impair constitutional government. I will seek to answer these open constitutional questions and in doing so outline a methodology to determine whether racial vilification may count as political communication. If so, I will then consider whether this, consequently, imperils the validity of existing Australian racial vilification laws. And second, I want to critically evaluate the normative legitimacy of Australian racial vilification laws and propose legislative reform in the event that my analysis reveals any serious flaws in the current legal framework. The methodology outlined in the first part of the thesis provides the relevant constitutional parameters within which any proposed legislative reform must fall.
    [Show full text]
  • 17 MAR 2017 and 10 the REGISTRY CANBERRA AARON JAMES HOLLIDA Y Respondent
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA CANBERRA REGISTRY No. C3 of2017 BETWEEN: HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA THE QUEEN F ILED Appellant 17 MAR 2017 and 10 THE REGISTRY CANBERRA AARON JAMES HOLLIDA Y Respondent APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS Part 1: PUBLICATION 1. The appellant certifies that this submission is in a form suitable for publication on the 20 internet. Part 11: ISSUES 2. The appellant contends that the following issues arise in the appeal: 1. Under s 47 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ("the ACT Code"), a Model Criminal Code ("the Model Code"), can a person be convicted of the offence of incitement on the basis that they incited another to procure a third person to commit an offence? 11. When is the offence of incitement under s 47 ofthe ACT Code committed? 111. Are ss 45(2)(a) and (3) of the ACT Code "limitation or qualifying provisions" for the 30 purposes of ss 47(5)? Part Ill: SECTION 78B 3. The appellant considers that notice pursuant to s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) is not required. Part IV: CITATIONS 4. The citations for the decision of the ACT Court of Appeal appealed from are: 40 • Holliday v The Queen (20 16) 312 FLR 77. • Holliday v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 42. The Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) 20-22 London Circuit Telephone: (02) 6207 5399 GPO Box 595 Fax: (02) 6207 5428 Canberra City ACT 2601 OX 5725 Canberra City Ref: Thomas Buckingham 2. Part V: RELEVANT FACTS Case at trial 5. The facts of the matter are summarised in the judgment ofMurrell CJ in the court below.
    [Show full text]
  • Essay Sir Ronald Wilson: an Appreciation
    ESSAY SIR RONALD WILSON: AN APPRECIATION ROBERT NICHOLSON AO∗ [Sir Ronald Wilson (known by his own wish to all as Ron Wilson) was short in stature and long in energy. He was a person who devoted himself passionately to all causes in which he believed. Most of these were derived from or constituted by his religious faith and found expression in relation to the law. From humble beginnings to the highest judicial office, he preserved his own unique humanity and contact with people. This is a story of his life in the law and beyond.] CONTENTS I Beginnings .............................................................................................................. 499 A Legal Education......................................................................................... 500 B Family Life................................................................................................. 501 C Religious Belief.......................................................................................... 501 D Professional Practice.................................................................................. 502 E Solicitor-Generalship ................................................................................. 503 F Constitutional Predictions.......................................................................... 504 II High Court of Australia — 1979–89 ...................................................................... 507 A Constitutional Decision-Making................................................................ 508 B Criminal
    [Show full text]
  • Deakin Law Review Style Guide
    WHEN IS A CODE A CODE? * ANDREW HEMMING This paper will develop the proposition that criminal codes in Australia are misnamed because they fail the fundamental test for a code of comprehensively stating the criminal law in one statute. This contention applies to all codes from the Griffith Codes of Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory to the more recently minted Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). The reason for such failure is that all the codes are too sparsely written, and, due to inadequate definitional detail or statement of the appropriate tests to be applied, judges are required to have recourse to the common law to ‘fill in the blanks’ left by the code. It is here argued that a code needs to be structured with the objective of keeping statutory interpretation within the four corners of the code. Bland injunctions that recourse to the common law is permissible only when the meaning is uncertain or where a prior technical meaning existed are wholly inadequate. The paper sets out a series of examples which cover both offences and defences (such as causation and provocation) and which are intended to demonstrate the appropriate level of detail required to meet the conventional definition of a true code without sacrificing clarity. These examples should be viewed as templates for use in a variety of contexts, supporting the proposition that clarity, not confusion, can result from more detailed drafting. Drafting of this kind, which is directed at incorporating the relevant tests that the legislature accepts as appropriate, reduces reliance on secondary material such as second reading speeches.
    [Show full text]
  • Traditional Rights and Freedoms— Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws
    Traditional Rights and Freedoms— Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws FINAL REPORT ALRC Report 129 December 2015 This Final Report reflects the law as at 1 November 2015 The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) was established on 1 January 1975 by the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 (Cth) and reconstituted by the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth). The office of the ALRC is at Level 40 MLC Tower, 19 Martin Place, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia. Postal Address: GPO Box 3708 Sydney NSW 2001 Telephone: within Australia (02) 8238 6333 International:+61 2 8238 6333 Facsimile: within Australia (02) 8238 6363 International:+61 2 8238 6363 Email: [email protected] Website: www.alrc.gov.au ISBN: 978-0-9943202-1-6 Commission Reference: ALRC Report 129, 2015 © Commonwealth of Australia 2015 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in whole or part, subject to acknowledgement of the source, for your personal, non- commercial use or use within your organisation. Requests for further authorisation should be directed to the ALRC. ALRC publications are available to view or download free of charge on the ALRC website: www.alrc.gov.au/publications. Scan QR code to view ALRC Report 129 online or download as PDF or EPUB. Printed by Fineline Print & Copy Service NSW Senator the Hon George Brandis QC Attorney-General of Australia Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 23 December 2015 Dear Attorney-General Review of Commonwealth Laws for Consistency with Traditional Rights, Freedoms and Privileges On 19 May 2014, the Australian Law Reform Commission received Terms of Reference to undertake a Review of Commonwealth Laws for Consistency with Traditional Rights, Freedoms and Privileges.
    [Show full text]
  • High Court of Australia
    HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ VERA MOMCILOVIC APPELLANT AND THE QUEEN & ORS RESPONDENTS Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 8 September 2011 M134/2010 ORDER 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside paragraphs 1-5 of the order of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria dated 25 March 2010, and in their place order that: (a) the appellant have leave to appeal against her conviction; (b) the appeal be allowed; (c) the appellant's conviction be quashed and sentence set aside; and (d) a new trial be had. 3. The second respondent pay two-thirds of the costs of the appellant in this Court. On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria Representation M J Croucher and K L Walker with C A Boston for the appellant (instructed by Melasecca, Kelly & Zayler) G J C Silbert SC with B L Sonnet and C W Beale for the first respondent (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Vic)) S G E McLeish SC, Solicitor-General for the State of Victoria with J M Davidson and A M Dinelli for the second respondent (instructed by Victorian Government Solicitor) S P Donaghue with E M Nekvapil for the third respondent (instructed by Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission) Interveners S J Gageler SC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth with R M Doyle SC and A D Pound intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor) at the hearing on 8, 9 and 10 February 2011 H C Burmester QC with R M Doyle SC and A D Pound intervening on
    [Show full text]