|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| June 1996 |
|
|
A Supreme Court will not rescind its consent order remitting a matter for retrial absent mistake of law or fraud.
Civil procedure — Order for retrial by consent — Review of court’s own decisions — Jurisdiction to revisit judgments limited to mistake of law or fraud — Inherent jurisdiction not demonstrated.
|
10 June 1996 |
|
The court confirmed conviction for aggravated robbery, finding the appellant's warn-and-caution statement voluntary and admissible.
Criminal law — Admissibility of confession — Warn-and-caution statement — Voluntariness assessed in trial within a trial — Allegations of police beating and starvation — Confession can sustain conviction if found voluntary.
|
6 June 1996 |
|
Court upheld conviction because the warn-and-caution statement was voluntary and admissible despite limited forensic evidence.
Criminal law – Admissibility of confessions – Warn-and-caution statement – Voluntariness and trial-within-a-trial
Criminal procedure – Reliance on confession as sole or decisive evidence
Forensic evidence – Blood grouping and fingerprints; inconclusive or unpursued forensic issues do not necessarily undermine admissible confession
|
6 June 1996 |
|
Conviction for aggravated robbery upheld; sentence increased from 15 to 20 years due to aggravating circumstances.
Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – Possession of recently stolen property as evidence of guilt – Identification and continuous observation in low light – Sentencing: appellate increase of statutory minimum where circumstances warrant (gang offence; elderly victim).
|
5 June 1996 |
|
Technical breach for issuing redundancy notices before redeployment attempts; damages limited to contractual notice entitlements.
Employment law – redundancy agreement – obligation to endeavour to find alternative employment before declaring redundancies – technical breach where no alternatives exist – measure of damages for breach of redundancy agreement measured by contractual notice/pay in lieu, not a year’s salary – age discrimination claim dismissed.
|
4 June 1996 |
|
Consecutive sentences for separate receiving offences committed months apart were appropriate; ten-year effective sentence not excessive.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Concurrent versus consecutive sentences – Separate offences vs course of conduct – Preferable to try related matters together but distinct incidents may be sentenced separately – Receiving stolen property – Condign sentence.
|
4 June 1996 |