Namoa v The QueenCitation:[2021] HCA 13Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:14 Apr 2021Case Number:S188/2020Read more

Namoa v The QueenCitation:[2021] HCA 13Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:14 Apr 2021Case Number:S188/2020Read more

Section 11.5 of the Criminal Code (Cth) applies to spouses who agree between themselves to commit an offence, as the statutory language encompasses any two persons and displaces the common law rule that spouses alone cannot conspire.

Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Terrorism, Spousal Liability, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Conspiracy Terrorism Spousal Liability Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 11.5 of the Criminal Code (Cth) applies to spouses who agree between themselves, and no other person, to commit an offence against Commonwealth law
  2. 2 Whether the interpretation of s 11.5 is affected by any common law rule that spouses alone cannot conspire
  3. 3 Whether references in s 11.5 to 'person' and 'another person' include two spouses

Ratio Decidendi

Section 11.5 of the Criminal Code (Cth) applies to spouses who agree between themselves to commit an offence, as the statutory language encompasses any two persons and displaces the common law rule that spouses alone cannot conspire.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.