Jones v Chief of Navy [2012] FCAFC 125

Jones v Chief of Navy [2012] FCAFC 125

None of the applicant’s identified errors amounted to an error of law; directions given by the Judge Advocate were adequate to explain the real issues; s 67 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) properly applied, and convictions were not unreasonable nor inconsistent with acquittals; no miscarriage of justice occurred; s 61 Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) was available for prosecution; Constitution s 80 did not require trial by jury; Tribunal did not err in admitting evidence; appeal dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: JOHN ALAN JONES; Respondent: CHIEF OF NAVY
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Federal Court Appeal From Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Defence Force Discipline, Indecency Offences, Consent, Miscarriage of Justice, Military Justice, Trial by Jury, Admissibility of Evidence, Costs
Criminal Law Military Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Defence Force Discipline Indecency Offences Consent Miscarriage of Justice +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 38 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JOHN ALAN JONES

Applicant

CHIEF OF NAVY

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Federal Court Appeal From Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tribunal erred in failing to find substantial miscarriage of justice due to prosecutor’s address and Judge Advocate’s directions
  2. 2 Whether sufficient directions were given to Panel on consent under s 67 of Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
  3. 3 Whether convictions were unreasonable or unsafe because inconsistent with acquittals

Ratio Decidendi

None of the applicant’s identified errors amounted to an error of law; directions given by the Judge Advocate were adequate to explain the real issues; s 67 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) properly applied, and convictions were not unreasonable nor inconsistent with acquittals; no miscarriage of justice occurred; s 61 Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) was available for prosecution; Constitution s 80 did not require trial by jury; Tribunal did not err in admitting evidence; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondent's costs to be taxed if not earlier agreed.