6 Jun 2023
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the issues of general importance identified (objective element of self-defence, reverse onus in s 8 claims, and whether a private prosecution can satisfy the State's investigation obligation) were either unlikely to change the outcome on the established facts or the case was an unsuitable vehicle for resolving them; therefore no leave was granted.
17 May 2023
Court found on the balance of probabilities that Browne did not make a false statement and Tulloch did not make a false statement to police or in his written statement; neither defendant acted maliciously or recklessly so as to defeat qualified privilege; accordingly the injurious falsehood claim failed and the defendants are entitled to costs.
9 May 2022
The Court held the jury verdict was not unreasonable and the trial was not unfair, but the District Court erred in treating the defendant's election to defend as increasing culpability; the offending was of very low gravity while the collateral and personal consequences of conviction for this 66‑year‑old defendant were disproportionate, so under s106(1) Sentencing Act 2002 the conviction was quashed and the defendant discharged without conviction while leaving a $500 compensation order intact.
16 Jun 2020
Although the Court accepted publication of X's name posed a real or appreciable risk of undue hardship, the balance of competing interests favored publication: the seriousness and organized nature of the defendants' methamphetamine importation, the public interest in understanding the defendants' modus operandi and in scrutiny of the Police charging decision and adequacy of investigation (including an unexecuted search warrant and timing questions), and the fundamental principle of open justice outweighed X's hardship claim; the Crown's concession abandoning the specific Sese/X1 implication d…
19 Mar 2020
The conviction was quashed because the jury directions on self-defence were ordered and framed such that the jury had likely already concluded matters inimical to a fair consideration of self-defence (including mis‑sequencing intent before self‑defence and omission/misstatement of honest belief and background), creating a real risk of miscarriage of justice; retrial ordered.
15 May 2017
The Court refused the request because the confidentiality and privacy interests of patients and the existence of permanent suppression orders outweighed the police's unsupported investigatory interest; the police failed to show a proper and specific need to override suppression, regulatory bodies had not referred the matter to police, and no persuasive evidence was provided to justify disclosure of Dr N's identity.