On Friday, 15 March 2013 the Melbourne panels of the High
Court were feeling very generous and granted special leave to appeal in four
cases. There were no grants of special
leave to appeal from the Sydney panels.
The first case is Legal Services Board v Gillespie-Jones,
in which a barrister successfully claimed against the Fidelity Fund in respect
of moneys that had been paid by a client to a solicitor on trust for the
purposes of paying the barrister’s fees, but which moneys were misappropriated
by the solicitor.
The second case is a series of
appeals in Pantazis v The Queen; Issa v
The Queen and Elias v The Queen
in which the High Court will be called upon to consider the common law
principle that in sentencing a person for a State criminal offence a sentencing
judge is required to take into
account the less punitive regime of another State offence, or a Commonwealth
offence, that was a more appropriate offence than the offence upon which the
accused fell to be sentenced.
The third case is Nguyen v The Queen. In this case two co-accused had been
convicted of murder and attempted murder, either on the basis of acting in
concert with the killer, on the basis of extended common purpose, or on the
basis that they aided and abetted the killer.
The Victorian Court of Appeal quashed the convictions and entered
verdicts of acquittal in respect of one of the co-accused, on the grounds that
a reasonable jury properly directed must have entertained a doubt as to the
guilt of that co-accused of murder or an alternative charge of manslaughter
(and the associated attempt) . The other
co-accused now appeals against the dismissal of his appeal, and raises the
question of whether or not a viable alternative verdict of manslaughter based
on acting in concert or extended common purpose ought to have been left to the
jury.
Finally, the High Court has
granted special leave to appeal in the long-running Bell Litigation in which a
syndicate of banks was ordered to pay more than $2 billion to the liquidator of
Alan Bond’s failed Bell Group, which collapsed in 1991.
Dear Under_Exposed,
ReplyDeleteHow is it that you know ahead of time when the High Court is to deliver judgment in a case?
The High Court has an alert service you can subscribe to?
Delete