Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Next week in the High Court of Australia

The High Court will hear argument in three cases next week.
On Tuesday, 30 April 2013 the Court will consider an appeal from the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in Agius v The Queen.  At issue n the appeal is whether a person commits the offence of conspiracy to defraud contrary to section 135.4 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code where the agreement underlying the alleged conspiracy was formed prior to the commencement of that section, but the agreement was given effect to after that commencement.
On Wednesday, 1 May 2013 the Court will consider an appeal from the NSW Court of Appeal in Lee v NSW Crime Commission.  At issue is whether or not the NSW Supreme Court ought to have made orders for the compulsory examination of the appellant under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) while there were pending criminal charges against the appellant to which the answers given during the examination might be relevant. It also raise a related question of whether, to the extent that the Act purports to enable the making of order for compulsory examination in those circumstances, the Act is invalid as an undue impairment upon the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court contrary to Chapter III of the Constitution.
On Thursday, 2 May 2013 the Court will hear applications for special leave to appeal (to be heard as if on appeal) in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Global Gaming Supplies Pty Ltd and Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Allam.  These appeals arise out of proceedings commenced by Aristocrat Technologies and associated companies seeking damages for copyright and trademark infringement in relation to the supply of refurbished gaming machines in Latin America (principally Peru) pursuant to a joint venture arrangement.  The issue on appeal is the application of section 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (relating to tendency evidence) to certain emails which were said to demonstrate a tendency on the part of the respondents to engage in infringing transactions. 

No comments:

Post a Comment