Tag: Queensland
-
In Armitage v Parole Board Queensland (2023) 17 QR 297, the Court of Appeal reviewed the Parole Board’s decision to issue a ‘no cooperation declaration’ for a ‘no body-no parole prisoner’, where the victim’s remains were likely destroyed by fire or animal predation. One of the key issues was the meaning of “remains”.
-
In the matter of R v Lovell; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 136, the Court of Appeal considered whether a disfigurement subsequently medically repaired is capable of amounting to ‘serious disfigurement’ under the definition of grievous bodily harm.
-
In Carter v Attorney-General (No 2) [2014] 1 Qd R 111, the Court of Appeal examined the issues of whether section 311 (‘aiding suicide’) of the Criminal Code was a complete code, and whether killing with the intention to kill, where the person desired death, is murder?
-
In Cobb v Queensland Police Service (2023) 3 QDCR 123, the Court considered whether a mobile phone constitutes a ‘computer’ for the purposes of s 408E of the Criminal Code and whether unauthorised access to a password-protected mobile phone amounted to misuse of a ‘restricted computer’.
-
In the matter of Re: AJG [2004] QCA 88, the applicant sought admission as a solicitor, after having engaged in substantial academic misconduct (plagiarism) during Practical Legal Training (PLT).
-
In Burton v Davies [1953] QSR 26, the defendant’s actions of driving at high speed preventing the plaintiff from leaving the vehicle, constituted false imprisonment, as the plaintiff had no reasonable means of escape.
-
In R v Morris [2010] QCA 315, the Court of Appeal considered whether the applicant’s sentence for unlawful stalking for posting defamatory notices—implicating the complainant as a murderer, was excessive.
-
In R v Reid [2007] 1 Qd R 64, the appellant appealed their conviction of unlawfully transmitting a serious disease (HIV) with intent to do so, contrary to s 317(b) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). The appeal focused on the meaning of intent.
-
In Queensland v Masson [2020] HCA 28, the High Court considered whether the State was liable in negligence for its paramedic’s omission to promptly administer Adrenaline to Masson, who sustained severe brain damage after an asthma attack.
-
In R v Willmot (No 2) [1985] 2 Qd R 41, the Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether the jury were misdirected on the element of intent in a murder conviction under s 302(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).
-
In Stuart v The Queen (1974) 134 CLR 426, the High Court considered constructive murder (also known as felony murder), clarifying that conviction requires proof of an unlawful act endangering life, not intent to kill, leading to the refusal of Stuart’s application.
-
The tort of private nuisance is defined by the High Court in Hargrave v Goldman, per Windeyer J at 60, as ‘an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over, or in connexion, with it.’
-
In CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman [2023] HCA 21, the High Court unanimously held that the employer was not vicariously liable for its employee’s drunken behaviour as it was not within the ‘course or scope of employment’.
-
In Hegarty v Queensland Ambulance Service [2007] QCA 366, a paramedic developed psychiatric injuries after exposure to numerous traumatic events at work. The Court of Appeal allowed the State’s appeal, dismissing the employee’s actions, concluding it was difficult for supervisors to recognise his psychological distress despite training.
-
In Amstad v Brisbane City Council (No 1) [1968] Qd R 344, a council employee entered the premises of the plaintiff, contrary to the council ordinances. It was held that entry upon the land could not be justified by any implied license.