text:
Manslaughter in English law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") or by reason of a partial defence. In England and Wales, the usual practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option (see lesser included offence). The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.
Contents
[hide]
1 Voluntary manslaughter
1.1 Diminished responsibility
1.1.1 Abnormality of mind
1.1.2 Specified causes
1.1.3 Substantial impairment of mental responsibility
1.2 Loss of control
1.3 Suicide pacts
2 Involuntary manslaughter
2.1 Manslaughter by gross negligence
2.2 Death by dangerous driving
2.3 Manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act
2.4 Unlawful (constructive) act manslaughter and the liability imposed on drug suppliers
3 Defence
4 Mode of trial and sentence
5 Attempt
6 History
6.1 Voluntary manslaughter - former partial defence of provocation
6.1.1 Acts constituting provocation
6.1.2 Subjective limb: provocation in fact
6.1.3 Objective limb: the reasonable man test
7 See also
8 References
Voluntary manslaughter[edit]
Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant kills with mens rea (an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm), but one of those partial defences which reduce murder to manslaughter applies (these consist of mitigating circumstances which reduce the defendant's culpability). The original mitigating factors were provocation and chance medley which existed at common law, but the former has been abolished by statute, the latter has been held no longer to exist[1] and new defences have been created by statute.
The Homicide Act 1957 now provides two defences which may be raised to allow the court to find the accused guilty of voluntary manslaughter: diminished responsibility and suicide pact. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 creates the defence of "loss of control".
Diminished responsibility[edit]
Main article: Diminished responsibility in English law
See also: Diminished responsibility
Under section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 there are three requirements for the defendant to raise the defence of diminished responsibility. The defendant must have suffered from an abnormality of mind at the time of the killing caused by one of the causes specified by the Act which substantially impaired the defendant’s mental responsibility for the killing. Under section 2(2) of the Act it is for the defendant to prove he suffered from such a condition on the balance of probabilities.
Abnormality of mind[edit]
An abnormality of mind has been defined by Lord Parker CJ "as state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal".[2] In deciding whether this state of mind exists the jury should consider medical evidence, but also all other evidence including acts and statements of the accused and his demeanour. The jury does not have to accept the medical evidence if other material conflicts with and outweighs it.
Specified causes[edit]
The Homicide Act specifies three causes one of which must cause the abnormality; they are a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind, any inherent cause or a disease or injury. Whether the abnormality is caused by one of the specified causes is a matter for medical evidence alone.[2] Alcoholism is capable of being an abnormality of mind even if there is no physical damage to the brain.[3]
Substantial impairment of mental responsibility[edit]
Whether the abnormality substantially impaired the defendant’s mental responsibility for the killing is a question of degree for the jury. In R v Lloyd the Court of Appeal held that the lack of control must simply be ‘more than trivial’.[4]
Loss of control[edit]
See sections 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
Suicide pacts[edit]
Section 4(1) of the Homicide Act 1957 introduced the defence of suicide pact. Parliament's intention was to show some compassion for those who had been involved in a suicide pact but failed to die. Section 4(3) defines a suicide pact as "a common agreement between two or more persons having for its object the death of all of them, whether or not each is to take his own life". Further the accused must have had a "settled intention of dying in pursuance of the pact" to avoid the accused entering into a supposed pact with the real intention of committing murder. The Law Commission has proposed abolishing the defence with deserving cases falling within diminished responsibility,[5] but feels it should be retained pending a review of a new partial defence of mercy killings.[6]
Involuntary manslaughter[edit]
Involuntary manslaughter arises where the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence. For these purposes, recklessness is defined as a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be dropping a brick off a bridge, landing on a person's head, killing him. Since the intent is not to kill the victim, but simply to drop the brick, the mens rea required for murder does not exist because the act is not aimed at any one person. But if in dropping the brick, there is a good chance of injuring someone, the person who drops it will be reckless. This form of manslaughter is also termed "unlawful act" or "constructive" manslaughter.
Manslaughter by gross negligence[edit]
Under English law, where a person owes a duty of care (either by statute or by the neighbour principle[7]) and is negligent to such a degree that consequently the law regards it as a crime[8] (namely the person has been grossly negligent) and that person causes the victim to die, he may be liable for gross negligence manslaughter.[9] The defendants in such cases are often people carrying out jobs that require special skills or care, such as doctors, teachers, police or prison officers, or electricians, who fail to meet the standard which could be expected from a reasonable person of the same profession.[10] In R v Bateman[11] the Court of Criminal Appeal held that gross negligence manslaughter involved the following elements:
the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;
the defendant breached this duty;
the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.
The House of Lords in Seymour[12] sought to identify the mens rea for "motor manslaughter" (negligently causing death when driving a motor vehicle). Reference was made to R v Caldwell and R v Lawrence[13][14] which held that a person was reckless if:
he did an act which in fact created an obvious and serious risk of injury to the person or substantial damage to property; and
when he did the act he either had not given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or had recognised that there was some risk involved and had nonetheless gone on to do it.
The conclusion was that for motor manslaughter (and, by implication, for all cases of gross negligence), it was more appropriate to adopt this definition of recklessness. Consequently, if the defendant created an obvious and serious risk of causing physical injury to someone, there could be liability whether there was simple inadvertence or conscious risk-taking. It was no longer a defence to argue that the negligence had not been gross.
In Adomako[15] an anaesthetist failed to notice that a tube had become disconnected from the ventilator and the patient died. Lord Mackay disapproved Seymour and held that the Bateman test of gross negligence was the appropriate test in manslaughter cases involving a breach of duty, allowing the jury to consider the accused's conduct in all the surrounding circumstances, and to convict only if the negligence was very serious. Individuals have a duty to act in the following situations:
to care for certain defined classes of helpless relatives, e.g. spouses must take care of each other, and parents must look after their dependent children. In R v Stone and Dobinson[16] an elderly woman with anorexia nervosa, came to stay with her brother and his cohabitee, who were both of low intelligence, and subsequently starved herself to death. The Court of Appeal held that the question whether the couple owed a duty to care for the deceased was a question of fact for the jury, which was entitled to take into account the facts that she was a relative of one of the appellants, that she was occupying a room in his house, and that the other appellant had undertaken the duty to care for her by trying to wash her and taking food to her.
where there is a contract (even if the person injured was outside the contractual relationship and, in the civil law would be barred by privity from enforcing the contract). In R v Pittwood 1902 TLR 37, a railway crossing gatekeeper had opened the gate to let a cart pass and forgot to shut it again. Later a hay cart was struck by a train while crossing. He was convicted of manslaughter. It was argued on his behalf that he owed a duty only to his employers, the railway company, with whom he had contracted. Wright J, held, however, that the man was paid to keep the gate shut and protect the public so had a duty to act. In contracts relating both to employment and to the provision of services, R v Yaqoob[17] considered a partner in a taxi firm who was responsible for making all necessary arrangements for the inspection and maintenance of a minibus which had overturned after its tyre burst, killing one of its passengers. He was convicted of manslaughter because the failure properly to maintain the minibus was the direct cause of the accident and there was an implied duty owed both to other members of the partnership and to those renting the vehicle, to inspect and maintain beyond the standard required for an MOT test, council inspections, and other duties imposed by regulation. The jury was competent to assess whether the failure to discharge that implied duty was gross negligence without hearing any expert evidence; these were not technical issues and they did not need expert help. The sentence of four years imprisonment was within the sentencing band and not excessive.
In Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1999),[18] a case on corporate manslaughter that arose out of the Southall rail crash, the Court of Appeal decided the defendant's subjective state of mind (i.e. whether there was conscious risk-taking) is irrelevant and, therefore, so is the question of recklessness, leaving the objective test as the only test for liability. Rose LJ, said:
Although there may be cases where the defendant’s state of mind is relevant to the jury’s consideration when assessing the grossness and criminality of his conduct, evidence of his state of mind is not a pre-requisite to a conviction for manslaughter by gross negligence. The Adomako test is objective, but a defendant who is reckless as defined in Stone may well be the more readily found to be grossly negligent to a criminal degree. In our judgment unless an identified individual’s conduct, characterisable as gross criminal negligence, can be attributed to the company, the company is not, in the present state of the common law, liable for manslaughter.
Civil negligence rules are not apt to confer criminal liability…the identification principle remains the only basis in common law for corporate liability for gross negligence manslaughter. (see imputation). This was only persuasive authority for the law of manslaughter at large, but R v DPP, ex p Jones[19] which said that the test of negligent manslaughter is objective, confirmed Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 1999) as a correct general statement of law.
Death by dangerous driving[edit]
Because of a reluctance by juries to convict when the charge was manslaughter, a statutory offence of "causing death by dangerous driving" was introduced. Following the Road Traffic Law Review Committee (1988), the Road Traffic Act 1991 abandoned recklessness in favour of the pre-statutory objective test of "dangerousness", i.e. did the driving fall far below the standard of the competent and careful driver. The Committee also recommended that manslaughter should be an optional charge for the more serious driving cases. There is the possibility of charging an aggravated taking without consent for less seriously dangerous driving where death results. An equivalent, in many American states, to motor manslaughter, is vehicular homicide. An equivalent to causing death by dangerous driving in Canada under the Criminal Code is Causing death by criminal negligence.
Manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act[edit]
Under English law, according to R v Creamer,[20] a person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when he or she intends an unlawful act that is likely to do harm to the person, and death results which was neither foreseen nor intended. The name for this crime is 'manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act' (MUDA). The term 'constructive manslaughter' is commonly and correctly used as a synonym. Although the accused did not intend to cause serious harm or foresee the risk of doing so, and although an objective observer would not necessarily have predicted that serious harm would result, the accused's responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might have been a minor criminal act.
The case of R v Goodfellow[21] laid out a four-part requirement which if satisfied could lead to liability for MUDA. The person's action must:
Be intentional
Be unlawful
Lead the reasonable person to realise that some other person is at risk of physical harm
Be the cause of death
A number of authorities clarify the test from R v Goodfellow:
As to (1): either did the person intend to bring about the commission of the offence,[22] or was the outcome a virtual certainty that the person knew was a virtual certainty?.[23] If the answer to either of these questions is yes then the person's action was intentional.
As to (2): a full 'base offence' must be established, or else there can be no liability for MUDA.[24]
As to (3): the test is one of objective reasonableness and is a question for the jury to determine (i.e. to answer the question: "Would a reasonable person realise that the defendant's act was bound to subject some other person to the risk of physical harm?")
As to (4): was the act a cause in fact and in law? (see Causation (law) for details)
In R v Dawson,[25] a petrol station attendant with a weak heart died of heart failure when the appellant attempted a robbery of the station. In judging whether this act was sufficiently dangerous, the Court of Appeal applied a test based on the "sober and reasonable" bystander who could be assumed to know that the use of a replica gun was likely to terrify people and so be a danger to those with a weak heart. Note the aggravated form of criminal damage with intent to endanger life under section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 which could provide the unlawful act if the damage actually causes death. But R v Carey, C and F[26] limits the scope of unlawful act manslaughter. An argument became violent and the first defendant punched and kicked one victim. The second defendant assaulted the deceased by pulling her hair back and punching her in the face. The third defendant assaulted another. The deceased was one of the first to run away, after which she felt faint, and later died of a heart condition (ventricular fibrillation or dysrhythmia) which was congenital but which had not been diagnosed before her death. The unlawful act was said to be the affray and the judge held that it was legitimate to aggregate the violence by the other defendants in order to decide whether the affray had subjected the deceased to the threat of at least some physical harm, and so had been a cause of death. On appeal, it was inappropriate to hold the defendants liable for the death. There must be an unlawful act that was dangerous in the sense that sober and reasonable persons would recognise that the act was such as to subject Y to the risk of physical harm. In turn, that act must cause the death. When deciding whether an act is dangerous, knowledge of the victim's characteristics may be relevant. In this case, no reasonable person would have been aware of the victim's heart condition which distinguishes this case from Dawson, and from R v Watson[27] in which the victim's approximate age (he was 87 years old) and frail state would have been obvious to a reasonable person. A sober and reasonable person would not have foreseen that an apparently healthy person of 15 years would suffer shock as a result of it. The court held that the deceased's death was not caused by injuries that were a foreseeable result of the affray. The assault by the second defendant was an unlawful act causing death. The other two defendants could have been convicted by virtue of common purpose given that the death was an accidental departure from the general plan of the affray. But the Crown did not elect to present the case in this way, but pleaded the case as a public order group activity. The result would be that if anyone died in a general disturbance amounting to an affray, all those who participated could be convicted of manslaughter which would be against public policy. Deaths in a general disturbance are too remote to be caused by all participants.
Thus, a punch which causes a person to fall will almost inevitably satisfy the test of dangerousness, and where the victim falls and suffers a fatal head injury the accused is guilty of manslaughter. It is foreseeable that the victim is at risk of suffering some physical harm (albeit not serious harm) from such a punch and that is sufficient. Physical harm includes shock. The reason why the death resulting from the attempted robbery of the 60-year-old petrol station attendant was not manslaughter was that the attempted robbery was not dangerous in the relevant sense. It was not foreseeable that an apparently healthy 60-year-old man would suffer shock and a heart attack as a result of such an attempted robbery. But the jury properly found that it was foreseeable that an obviously frail and very old man was at risk of suffering shock leading to a heart attack as a result of a burglary committed at his home late at night.
In R v Charles James Brown,[28] following the break-up of his relationship with his girlfriend, at about 3 pm., the defendant sent a text message to his mother saying that he did not want to live any more. He then drove his car against the flow of traffic along the hard shoulder of the A1(M) at high speed, before moving into the carriageway, still accelerating and straddling the centre line. He then crashed, head on, into an oncoming car, killing the passenger and injuring many others in the resulting consequential crashes. A sentence of 10 years' detention in a young offender institution was upheld because although the intentional focus might have been only on suicide, the defendant must have known from the way he was driving that he would kill or injure at least one other person (thus enforcing an objective standard on the defendant).
Unlawful (constructive) act manslaughter and the liability imposed on drug suppliers[edit]
The law on those who supply the (post) deceased with drugs had been uncertain until the case of R v Kennedy.[29] The defendant supplied heroin to a drug user that asked for something to help them sleep. An hour after administering the drug the victim died. Kennedy was found guilty of manslaughter and appealed on the grounds that there must be an unlawful act which caused the victim's death. In this case the defendant set up the drug and supplied it but did not administer it, therefore it was an act of the victim himself that caused his own death. Kennedy was acquitted of manslaughter. Prior to this House of Lords ruling, the lower courts (in particular the Court of Appeal) struggled to strike a balance between those suppliers considered to have administered the drug (in the subsequent cases, heroin) to the victim themselves, and those suppliers who simply "supply" the drug for the victim to then voluntarily administer themselves.[30]
Defence[edit]
Infanticide is a partial defence to manslaughter under the Infanticide Act 1938 (as amended by section 57 the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to confirm the decision in R v Gore[31]) and reduces the manslaughter to the crime of infanticide.
Mode of trial and sentence[edit]
Manslaughter is an indictable-only offence.
A person guilty of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life or for any shorter term.[32]
For case law on sentencing see the Crown Prosecution Service sentencing manual:
Involuntary manslaughter[33]
Manslaughter - diminished responsibility[34]
Manslaughter - provocation[35]
Manslaughter - suicide pact[36]
Attempt[edit]
Main article: Attempt
In R v Creamer,[20] the court said obiter that attempted manslaughter is not an offence known to law.[37]
History[edit]
Voluntary manslaughter - former partial defence of provocation[edit]
Main article: Provocation in English law
See also: Provocation (legal)
Provocation in English law was abolished on 4 October 2010[38] by section 56(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009,[39] but replaced by the similar partial defence of "loss of control".
Acts constituting provocation[edit]
At common law, acts of provocation had to be actual violence towards the defendant; words could not amount to provocation. The two exceptions to this rule were a husband discovering his wife committing adultery and a father finding someone buggering his son. There were two limbs to the defence, first the defendant had to have actually been provoked, and second the provocation had to be such as would have made the reasonable man act as the defendant did. The Homicide Act 1957 removed all limits on what could amount to provocation and allowed it to include provocation from someone other than the victim,[40] and aimed at someone other than the accused.[41] Further the defence was not defeated by the fact that the defendant induced the provocation.[42] Section 56[43] of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 states that the common law defence of provocation is abolished and replaced by sections 54 and 55; and that section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 is also abolished and replaced with sections 54 and 55.
Subjective limb: provocation in fact[edit]
This was a question of fact for the jury. The loss of control had to be sudden and temporary,[44] however it could be the result of slow burn; the final straw needed not be very bad as long as it led to an actual sudden and temporary loss of control. A delay between the act of provocation and the killing did not always defeat the defence, but often would.[45]
Objective limb: the reasonable man test[edit]
Under section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 the second question to be answered by the jury in order for the defence to succeed was ‘whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man act as [the defendant] did?’. The reasonable man for the purposes of this test had the same sex and age as the defendant and shared such characteristics as affect the gravity of the provocation to the defendant, but characteristics irrelevant to the provocation such as unrelated mental disorders were not given to the reasonable man.[46] Finally, the reasonable man always had reasonable powers of self-control[47] and was never intoxicated.[48]
See also[edit]
Infanticide
Suicide Act 1961
References[edit]
Gardner, Simon. (1995). "Manslaughter by Gross Negligence" 111 Law Quarterly Review 22
Jump up ^ R v Semini [1949] 1 KB 405, 33 Cr App R 51, CCA
^ Jump up to: a b R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396
Jump up ^ R v Wood [2009] 1 W.L.R. 496
Jump up ^ [1967] 1 Q.B. 175 at 177
Jump up ^ Law Commission Consultation Paper No. 177, A New Homicide Act for England and Wales
Jump up ^ Law Commission Report No. 304, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide
Jump up ^ Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Jump up ^ R v Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650
Jump up ^ R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171
Jump up ^ AG's Reference (No. 2 of 1999) [2000] QB 796 (Court of Appeal)
Jump up ^ R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8, (1925) ? Cox 33, [1925] All ER Rep 45, CCA. For an explanation of these abbreviations see Case citation.
Jump up ^ R v Seymour [1983] 2 AC 493, [1983] 3 WLR 349, [1983] 2 All ER 1058, 77 Cr App R 215, [1983] RTR 455, [1983] Crim LR 742, HL, affirming 76 Cr App R 211, CA
Jump up ^ R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341, HL
Jump up ^ R v Lawrence [1982] AC 510, [1981] 2 WLR 524, 73 Cr App R 1, [1981] 1 All ER 974, [1981] RTR 217, [1981] Crim LR 409, HL, reversing 71 Cr App R 291
Jump up ^ R v Adamoko [1995] 1 AC 171, [1994] 3 WLR 288, [1994] 3 All ER 79, 99 Cr App R 362, HL
Jump up ^ R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354, 64 Cr App R 186, [1977] 2 WLR 169, [1977] 2 All ER 341, [1977] Crim LR 166, CA
Jump up ^ R v Yaqoob 2005 EWCA Crim 1269
Jump up ^ Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1999) 2000 3 AER 182
Jump up ^ R v DPP, ex p Jones 2000 (QBD) IRLR 373
^ Jump up to: a b R v Creamer [1966] 1 QB 72, 49 Cr App R 368, [1965] 3 WLR 583, [1965] 3 All ER 257, CCA
Jump up ^ (1986) 83 Cr App R 23, per Lord Lane CJ at p.27
Jump up ^ R v Mohan [1976] QB 1
Jump up ^ R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82
Jump up ^ R v Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981
Jump up ^ R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150, CA
Jump up ^ R v Carey, C and F 2006 EWCA Crim 17
Jump up ^ R v Watson [1989] 1 WLR 684
Jump up ^ R v Charles James Brown 2005 EWCA Crim 2868
Jump up ^ R v Kennedy 2007 UKHL 38
Jump up ^ R v Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38
Jump up ^ R v Gore [2007] EWCA Crim 2789
Jump up ^ Offences against the Person Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c.100), section 5; Criminal Justice Act 1948 (11 & 12 Geo.6 c.58), section 1(1)
Jump up ^ "Involuntary Manslaughter: Sentencing Manual: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service". 2015-08-14. Archived from the original on 2015-08-14. Retrieved 2016-09-19. CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link)
Jump up ^ "Manslaughter Diminished Responsibility: Sentencing Manual: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service". 2016-03-03. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2016-09-19. CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link)
Jump up ^ "Manslaughter Provocation: Sentencing Manual: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service". 2016-03-03. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2016-09-19. CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link)
Jump up ^ "Manslaughter Suicide Pact: Sentencing Manual: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service". 2016-03-03. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2016-09-19. CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link)
Jump up ^ R v Creamer [1966] 1 QB 72 at 81, 49 Cr App R 368 at 378, CCA
Jump up ^ The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (Commencement No. 4, Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/816 (C. 56)), article 6(b); and see here
Jump up ^ "BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Queen's Speech: Bill-by-bill". news.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
Jump up ^ R v Davies [1975] QB 691
Jump up ^ R v Pearson [1992] Crim LR 193
Jump up ^ Edwards v R [1973] AC 648
Jump up ^ "Coroners and Justice Act 2009". www.legislation.gov.uk/.
Jump up ^ R v Duffy [1946] 1 All ER 932n
Jump up ^ R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889
Jump up ^ A-G for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, as affirmed in R v James and Karimi [2006] EWCA Crim 14
Jump up ^ R v Lesbini [1914] 3 KB 1116
Jump up ^ R v Newell (1980) 71 Cr App R 331
[hide]
v
t
e
English criminal law
Classes of crimes
Common law
Indictable
Either way
Summary
Regulatory
Lesser included
Elements of crimes
Actus reus
Causation
Mens rea
Intention (criminal law)
Intention in English law
Recklessness
Criminal negligence
Corporate / Vicarious / Strict liability
Omissions
Concurrence
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Inchoate offences
Encouraging or assisting crime
Conspiracy
Accessory
Attempt
Common purpose
Defences
Self-defence
Duress
Necessity
Marital coercion
Consent
Medical procedure
Prevention of crime
Participation in a sporting event
Lawful excuse
Insanity
Diminished responsibility
Intoxication
Category:Criminal defences
Offences against the person
Homicide (Murder / Manslaughter / Corporate manslaughter / Infanticide)
Manslaughter in English law
Unlawful killing
Mayhem
Concealing birth
Child destruction
Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
Common assault
Attempting to choke, &c. in order to commit any indictable offence
Assault with intent to rob
Robbery
Assault with intent to rape
Assault with intent to commit felony, or on peace officers
Assault with intent to resist lawful apprehension
Buggery
Battery
Kidnapping
Child abduction
False imprisonment
Harassment
Offences against the Person Act 1861
Sexual offences
Rape
Sexual assault
Sexual Offences Act 2003
Public order offences
Riot
Violent disorder
Affray
Unlawful assembly
Fear or provocation of violence
Intentional harassment, alarm or distress
Harassment, alarm or distress
Public Order Act 1986
Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred
Challenging to a fight
Nuisance
Causing Public nuisance
Outraging public decency
Effecting a public mischief
Keeping a Disorderly house
Preventing the lawful burial of a body
Breach of the Peace
Treason
High treason
Common scold
Nightwalker statute
Rout
Forcible entry
Accessory (legal term)
Misconduct in a public office
Malfeasance in public office
Abuse of authority
Perjury of oath
Dereliction of duty
Offences against property
Arson
Dishonesty
Cheating (law)
Burglary
Robbery
Theft
Larceny
Criminal damage
Squatting
Trespass
Taken Without Owner's Consent (TWOC)
Deception
Handling stolen goods
Misappropriation of funds
Blackmail
Extortion
Cybercrime
Theft Act 1968
Theft Act 1978
Fraud Act 2006
Fraud by abuse of position
Conspiracy to defraud
Fare evasion
Webcam blackmail
Forgery, personation and cheating
Forgery
Cheating the public revenue
Uttering
Offences against justice
Bribery
Perjury
Offences Akin to Perjury
Perverting the course of justice
Misrepresentation as to identity
Embracery
Witness intimidation
Witness tampering
Harming People who have Assisted the Police / Given Evidence / Been a Juror
Misprison of treason
Misprision of felony
Compounding a felony
Jury tampering
Assault with intent to resist lawful apprehension
Assisting an offender
Harboring a fugitive
Encouraging or assisting a crime
Escape from lawful custody
Obstructing justice
Obstruction of a police officer
Wasting police time
Refusing to assist a constable
Sedition
Espionage
Contempt of the sovereign
Contempt of court
Fabrication of false evidence
Breach of prison / breaking prison
Rescuing a prisoner
Other common law areas
Contract
Tort
Property
Wills
Trusts and estates
Evidence
Criminal procedure
History
Law of England and Wales portal
Criminal Justice portal
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manslaughter_in_English_law&oldid=819187568"
Categories:
English criminal law
Homicide
Manslaughter in the United Kingdom
Common law offences in England and Wales
Hidden categories:
CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 7 January 2018, at 23:32.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: href title

value: b

value: i

attrs: href class title

values:
/wiki/Lesser_included_offence
mw-redirect
Lesser included offence

values: Diminished responsibility in English law

values: Edit section: Substantial impairment of mental responsibility

values:
/wiki/Involuntary_manslaughter
mw-redirect
Involuntary manslaughter

values: Edit section: Manslaughter by gross negligence

values:
/wiki/R_v_Caldwell_and_R_v_Lawrence
mw-redirect
R v Caldwell and R v Lawrence

values: Edit section: Death by dangerous driving

values: Road Traffic Act 1991 (page does not exist)

values: Edit section: Manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act

values:
/wiki/Criminal_Damage_Act_1971
mw-redirect
Criminal Damage Act 1971

values:
/wiki/Cardiac_dysrhythmia
mw-redirect
Cardiac dysrhythmia

values: Edit section: Unlawful (constructive) act manslaughter and the liability imposed on drug suppliers

values:
/wiki/Court_of_Appeal
mw-redirect
Court of Appeal

values: Edit section: Mode of trial and sentence

values:
/wiki/Indictable-only_offence
mw-redirect
Indictable-only offence

values: Edit section: Voluntary manslaughter - former partial defence of provocation

values: Edit section: Acts constituting provocation

values: Edit section: Subjective limb: provocation in fact

values: Edit section: Objective limb: the reasonable man test

values: Category:CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown

values: Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (Commencement No. 4, Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2010 (page does not exist)

values: Template talk:English criminal law navbox

values:
/wiki/Encouraging_or_assisting_crime
mw-redirect
Encouraging or assisting crime

values:
/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)
mw-redirect
Conspiracy (crime)

values:
/wiki/Sporting_event
mw-redirect
Sporting event

values:
/wiki/Lawful_excuse
mw-redirect
Lawful excuse

values: Corporate manslaughter (England and Wales)

values:
/wiki/Assault_with_intent_to_rob
mw-redirect
Assault with intent to rob

values: Assault with intent to rape (page does not exist)

values: Intentional harassment, alarm or distress

values:
/wiki/Effecting_a_public_mischief
mw-redirect
Effecting a public mischief

values:
/wiki/Breach_of_the_Peace
mw-redirect
Breach of the Peace

values:
/wiki/Misconduct_in_a_public_office
mw-redirect
Misconduct in a public office

values:
/wiki/Malfeasance_in_public_office
mw-redirect
Malfeasance in public office

values:
/wiki/Fraud_by_abuse_of_position
mw-redirect
Fraud by abuse of position

values:
/wiki/Cheating_the_public_revenue
mw-redirect
Cheating the public revenue

values:
/wiki/Witness_intimidation
mw-redirect
Witness intimidation

values:
/wiki/Misprison_of_treason
mw-redirect
Misprison of treason

values: Harboring a fugitive (page does not exist)

values: Encouraging or assisting a crime in English law

values: Escape from lawful custody (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Obstructing_justice
mw-redirect
Obstructing justice

values: Breach of prison / breaking prison (page does not exist)

values: Rescuing a prisoner (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Trusts_and_estates
mw-redirect
Trusts and estates

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Category:Manslaughter in the United Kingdom

values: Category:Common law offences in England and Wales

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Manslaughter_in_English_law rootpage-Manslaughter_in_English_law skin-vector action-view


text:
Judiciary of Australia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Australia
This article is part of a series on the
politics and government of
Australia
Constitution[show]
Constitution of Australia
Statute of Westminster Adoption Act
Australia Act
The Crown[show]
Monarch: Elizabeth II
Governor-General: Sir Peter Cosgrove
Executive[show]
Prime Minister: Malcolm Turnbull
Deputy Prime Minister: Barnaby Joyce
Federal Executive Council
Ministry
Current (71st)
Cabinet
Legislature[show]
Parliament
Senate
President: Scott Ryan
House of Representatives
Speaker: Tony Smith
Opposition
Leader: Bill Shorten
Shadow Ministry
Judiciary[show]
High Court
Lower Courts
Laws of Australia
Elections[show]
Federal electoral system
Electoral divisions
Political parties
Recent elections
Federal: 2016
2013
2010
Federal by-elections
Referendums
States and territories[show]
Governors and Administrators
Premiers and Chief Ministers
Parliaments and Assemblies
State courts
State electoral systems
Local government[show]
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
Related topics[show]
Regions
Foreign relations
Defence Force
Public holidays
Republicanism
Other countries
Atlas
v
t
e
The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.
The large number of courts in Australia have different procedural powers and characteristics, different jurisdictional limits, different remedial powers and different cost structures.
Under the Australian Constitution, federal judicial power is vested in the High Court of Australia and such other federal courts as may be created by the federal Parliament. These courts include the Federal Court of Australia, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and the Family Court of Australia. Federal jurisdiction can also be vested in State courts.
The Supreme Courts of the states and territories are superior courts of record with general and unlimited jurisdiction within their own state or territory. They can try any justiciable dispute, whether it be for money or not, and whether it be for $1 or $1 billion.
Like the Supreme Courts, the Family Court and Federal Court are superior courts of record, which means that they have certain inherent procedural and contempt powers. But unlike their Supreme Court counterparts, their subject matter jurisdiction must be granted by statute. Under the doctrine of "accrued jurisdiction", the Federal Court can, however, rule on issues outside its explicit jurisdiction, provided that they are part of a larger matter that the court does have jurisdiction over.[1]
The High Court has limited trial powers, but very rarely exercises them. It has ample power to transfer cases started there to another, more appropriate court, so that the High Court can conserve its energies for its appellate functions.
Common law and equity are administered by the same courts, in a manner similar to that of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 (United Kingdom). Legal and equitable remedies may be pursued in the one action in the one court.
Contents
[hide]
1 Judges
2 Australian court hierarchy
3 Superior and inferior courts
4 Federal courts
4.1 High Court of Australia
4.2 Federal Court of Australia
4.3 Family Court of Australia
4.4 Federal Circuit Court of Australia
5 State and territory courts and tribunals
6 See also
7 References
8 Further reading
Judges[edit]
Judges are appointed by the executive government, without intervention by the existing judiciary.[2] Once appointed, judges have tenure and there are restrictions on their removal from office. For example, a federal judge may not be removed from office except by the Governor-General upon an address of both Houses of Parliament for proved misbehavior.[3] Judges in Australia are appointed by the Executive government of the relevant jurisdiction, and most judges have previously practised as a barrister. Federal judges may only serve until age 70.[3] There is no constitutional limit on the length of service of State court judges, but State laws usually fix a retirement age. For example, in New South Wales, judges must retire at age 72,[4] though they can remain as "acting judges" until age 76.[5]
Australian court hierarchy[edit]
General federal law
Family law
Employment law
General state/territory law
Apex court High Court of Australia
Superior courts (appellate jurisdiction) Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia Full Court of the Family Court of Australia Federal
Fair Work Division of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
State/territory
Various All matters
Court of Appeal (ACT - Qld - Vic - WA); Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (NI)
Civil matters
Court of Appeal (NSW - NT); Full Court (SA - Tas)
Criminal matters
Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW - NT - SA - Tas)
Superior courts (trial jurisdiction) Federal Court of Australia Family Court (WA - Rest of Australia) Federal/Victoria/Territories
Fair Work Division of the Federal Court of Australia
Other states
Various Supreme Court (ACT - NI - NSW - NT - Qld - SA - Tas - Vic - WA)
Intermediate courts Federal Circuit Court of Australia (does not hear WA family law matters) Federal/Victoria/Territories
Fair Work Division of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Other states
Industrial Court (Qld); Employment Court (SA) Supreme Court (NSW) District Court (NSW - Qld - SA - WA); County Court (Vic)
No intermediate court (ACT - NI - NT - Tas)
Inferior courts Magistrates' Court (ACT - Qld - SA - Tas - Vic - WA);
Local Court (NSW); Court of Petty Sessions (NI)
Various courts depending on jurisdiction (NT)
Quasi-judicial tribunals for e.g. small claims and/or administrative review Administrative review Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Other tribunals Child support
Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Federal/Victoria/Territories
Fair Work Commission
Other states
Industrial Relations Commission (NSW - Qld - WA); Employment Tribunal (SA) Administrative review and/or small claims ACAT (ACT) - NCAT (NSW) - NTCAT (NT) - QCAT (Qld) - VCAT (Vic) - SACAT (SA) - Various (Tas) - SAT (WA)
Minor claims division in Magistrates Court (SA - Tas - WA)
Other tribunals (ACT - NSW - NT - Qld - SA - Tas - Vic - WA)
Australian court hierarchy
Federal Law Courts
High Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Family Court of Australia
Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Commonwealth courts and tribunals
Courts of Australian states and territories
New South Wales courts
Victorian courts
Queensland courts
Western Australian courts
South Australian courts
Tasmanian courts
Australian Capital Territory courts
Northern Territory courts
Norfolk Island courts
v
t
e
The hierarchy consists of a variety of courts and tribunals at both the federal and state and territory levels, with the High Court being the highest court in the Australian judicial system.[6] A single body[7] of Australian common law is applied in the various Australian courts, and ultimately determined by the High Court now that appeals to the (British) Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have been abolished.[8][9][10]
Superior and inferior courts[edit]
The High Court has described the concept of a superior court (and associated 'notions derived from the position of pre-Judicature common law courts') as having 'no ready application in Australia to federal courts.'[11] Despite this, Australian courts are frequently characterised as either 'superior' or 'inferior.' The Federal Court[12] and the Supreme Courts of each State and Territory are generally considered to be superior courts.
There is no single definition of the term 'superior court' (or 'superior court of record'). In many respects Australian superior courts are similar to the Senior Courts of England and Wales. In Australia, superior courts generally:
have unlimited jurisdiction in law and equity,[13] or at least are not subject to jurisdictional limits as to the remedies they may grant;
determine appeals, at least as part of their jurisdiction;
are composed of judges whose individual decisions are not subject to judicial review[14] or appeal to a single judge;
are composed of judges entitled to the style and title The Honourable Justice; and
regularly publish their decisions in written form.
Inferior courts are those beneath superior courts in the appellate hierarchy, and are generally seen to include the Magistrates and District (or County) Court of each State as well as the Federal Circuit Court. Inferior courts are typically characterised by:
jurisdiction conferred by statute and limited as to subject matter or the quantum of relief; and
amenability to judicial review by a single judge of a superior court where a right of appeal is not available.
Federal courts[edit]
These courts among them have jurisdiction over Commonwealth law, that is, law made by the Federal parliament of Australia.
High Court of Australia[edit]
Main article: High Court of Australia
Courtroom 1 in the High Court in Canberra.
The High Court is the highest court in Australia. It was created by section 71 of the Constitution.[15] It has appellate jurisdiction over all other courts. It also has some original jurisdiction, and has the power of constitutional review. The High Court of Australia is the superior court to all federal courts, and is also the final route of appeal from all state superior courts.[16]
Appeals to the High Court are by special leave only, which is rarely granted. Therefore, for most cases, the appellate divisions of the Supreme Courts of each state and territory and the Federal Court are the ultimate appellate courts. The Full Court of the High Court is the ultimate appeal court for Australia.
Appeals from Australian courts to the Privy Council were initially possible, however the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 closed off all appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation,[8] and the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 closed almost all routes of appeal from the High Court.[9] The Australia Act 1986 eliminated appeals from state Supreme Courts to the Privy Council.[17] Appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council are now only theoretically possible in inter se matters with leave of the High Court under section 74 of the Constitution; however, the High Court has indicated it will not grant such leave in the future.[10]
Federal Court of Australia[edit]
Main article: Federal Court of Australia
In Melbourne, the Federal Courts are housed in the Commonwealth Law Courts Building on the corner of La Trobe Street and William Street.
The Federal Court primarily hears matters relating to corporations, trade practices, industrial relations, bankruptcy, customs, immigration and other areas of federal law.[1] The court has original jurisdiction in these areas, and also has the power to hear appeals from a number of tribunals and other bodies (and, in cases not involving family law, from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.)[18]
The court is a superior court of limited jurisdiction, but below the High Court of Australia in the hierarchy of federal courts, and was created by the Federal Court of Australia Act in 1976.[19]
Decisions of the High Court are binding on the Federal Court. There is an appeal level of the Federal Court (the "Full Court" of the Federal Court), which consists of several judges, usually three but occasionally five in very significant cases.[20]
Family Court of Australia[edit]
Main article: Family Court of Australia
The Family Court has jurisdiction over family law matters. It is a superior court of limited jurisdiction and was established in 1975 by the Family Law Act 1975 by the federal parliament. The Commonwealth has power over marriage and divorce under the Constitution. In the 1990s the states referred many of their powers over children of non-married couples to the Commonwealth, which added this power to the Family Court.
Uniquely among the states, Western Australia took up the option of establishing its own Family Court in 1975, and in that state all jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975 is exercised by the Family Court of Western Australia and not the Family Court of Australia.
The Family Court is a specialist family law court, involving parental disputes, matrimonial property, child support and other family-related laws. The principles of stare decisis (binding law from higher courts) are the same as for the Federal Court. Appeals from the Family Court are heard by the "Full Court" of the Family Court (three to five judges). Appeals from the Full Court lie to the High Court of Australia, though special leave is required. A single judge of the Family Court may hear appeals in family law matters from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Appeals from the Federal Circuit Court must go to either of these courts (Federal Court or Family Court), dependent on the area of law.
Decisions of the Full Court of the Federal and Family Courts are binding on Federal Circuit Court judges, as are decisions of these courts on appeal from a Federal Circuit Court judge. In other circumstances, decisions of a single Federal or Family Court judge are not strictly binding; however, these will usually be followed by sentencing.
Federal Circuit Court of Australia[edit]
Main article: Federal Circuit Court of Australia
The Federal Circuit Court of Australia (formerly known as the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia)[21] is an Australian court with jurisdiction over matters broadly relating to family law and child support, administrative law, admiralty law, bankruptcy, copyright, human rights, industrial law, migration, privacy and trade practices.There has been a shift recently towards having most cases held in this court, thereby freeing up workload so the Federal Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia can hear more complicated cases. This court also hears appeals from various federal tribunals.
State and territory courts and tribunals[edit]
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Each state and territory has a court hierarchy of its own, with the jurisdictions of each court varying from state to state and territory to territory. However, all states and territories have a Supreme Court, which is a superior court of record and is the highest court within that state or territory. These courts also have appeal divisions, known as the Full Court or Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court (in civil matters), or the Court of Criminal Appeal (in criminal matters.)
Decisions of the High Court are binding on all Australian courts, including state and territory Supreme Courts.
The state and territory courts can sometimes exercise federal jurisdiction (i.e. rule on matters subject to federal legislation.) However, an attempt by the states and the Commonwealth to pass legislation that would cross-vest state judicial powers in the Federal courts was struck down by the High Court in Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally,[22] as being unconstitutional. Notwithstanding this failure, however, both state and federal courts can exercise an "accrued jurisdiction," which enables them to hear all legal issues arising from a single set of facts. This enables all courts to deal with virtually all issues arising from the facts of a case, provided that the particular court has jurisdiction to hear the principal cause of action.
Most of the states have two further levels of courts, which are comparable across the country. The district court (or county court in Victoria) handles most criminal trials for less serious indictable offences, and most civil matters below a threshold (usually around $1 million). The magistrates court (or local court) handles summary matters and smaller civil matters. In jurisdictions without district or county courts, most of those matters are dealt with by the supreme courts. In Tasmania and the two mainland territories, however, there is only a Magistrates Court below the Supreme Court.
In the three external territories (that is, territories not directly forming part of the Commonwealth of Australia but administered by the Commonwealth) there is a supreme court and a magistrates court or court of petty sessions. The supreme courts are staffed by judges of other courts, usually the Federal Court. Appeals from those courts lie to the full Federal Court. As these territories have very small populations, the courts only sit from time to time as needed. The three external territories are Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
The remaining external territories (including Antarctica) do not have permanent courts. In the event of a case arising from these territories, the courts of the ACT have jurisdiction.
All the States and Territories, with the exception of Tasmania, have a Civil and Administrative Tribunal. These hear cases relating to lesser State or Territory administrative disputes (involving some individual, business or government body). These commonly involve actions by persons bound to act pursuant to some form of devolved legislation; such as Environmental Regulations or Rental Tenancy Regulations.
A table of the Court hierarchy and Civil and Administrative Tribunals of the Australian States and Territories follows here:

New South Wales
Victoria
Queensland
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
District Court of New South Wales
Local Court of New South Wales
New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT)
Supreme Court of Victoria
County Court of Victoria
Magistrates' Court of Victoria
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)
Supreme Court of Queensland
District Court of Queensland
Magistrates Court of Queensland
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT)

South Australia
Western Australia
Tasmania
Supreme Court of South Australia
District Court of South Australia
Magistrates Court of South Australia
South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT)
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Family Court of Western Australia
District Court of Western Australia
Magistrates Court of Western Australia
State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT)
Supreme Court of Tasmania
Magistrates Court of Tasmania

Northern Territory
Australian Capital Territory
Norfolk Island
Supreme Court of the Northern Territory
Northern Territory Local Court and specialist courts (colloq. "magistrates court")
Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT)
Supreme Court of Norfolk Island
Norfolk Island Court of Petty Sessions
See also[edit]
Australia portal
Law portal
Drug courts in Australia
Law enforcement in Australia
List of Commonwealth courts and tribunals
Victoria Bar Association
References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b Justice James Allsop. "An Introduction to the Jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia". [2007] Federal Judicial Scholarship 15.
Jump up ^ Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin [1990] HCA 21, (1990) 170 CLR 1 at 33.
^ Jump up to: a b Constitution (Cth) s 72.
Jump up ^ Judicial Officers Act 1986 (NSW) s 44.
Jump up ^ Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 37.
Jump up ^ Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1301.0 – Year Book Australia, 2012, Courts.
Jump up ^ Kirk v Industrial Court of NSW [2010] HCA 1, (2010) 239 CLR 531 at [99].
^ Jump up to: a b Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 (Cth).
^ Jump up to: a b Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 (Cth).
^ Jump up to: a b Although Gibbs CJ, Mason, Wilson and Dawson JJ referred to the 'theoretical possibility' of an appeal to the Privy Council under the Constitution (Cth) s 74 in Attorney-General v Finch [1984] HCA 40, (1984) 155 CLR 107, the following year Court described the grant of a s 74 certificate as 'impossible' in Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No 2) [1985] HCA 27, (1985) 159 CLR 461.
Jump up ^ Re McJannet; Ex Parte Minister for Employment Training & Industrial Relations (Qld) [1995] HCA 31, (1995) 184 CLR 620 at p. 653 (Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ).
Jump up ^ Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 5.
Jump up ^ See for example Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 23; Constitution of Queensland 2001 (Qld) s 58; Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) s 17; Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) s 85; Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) s 16.
Jump up ^ Although designation as a 'superior court of record' does not necessarily exclude the possibility of judicial review: Kirk v Industrial Court of NSW [2010] HCA 1, (2010) 239 CLR 531 at [107].
Jump up ^ Constitution (Cth) s 71.
Jump up ^ Constitution (Cth) s 73.
Jump up ^ Australia Act 1986 (Imp) and Australia Act 1986 (Cth).
Jump up ^ Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24.
Jump up ^ Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
Jump up ^ Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 14.
Jump up ^ Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act (Cth) s 8.
Jump up ^ Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally [1999] HCA 27, (1999) 27 CLR 511.
Further reading[edit]
Library resources about
Australian court hierarchy
Resources in your library
[show]
v
t
e
Courts of the Australian states and territories
Commonwealth
High Court
Federal Court
Family Court
Federal Circuit Court
Court of Disputed Returns
List of Commonwealth courts and tribunals
New South Wales
Supreme Court
District Court
Local Court
List of New South Wales courts and tribunals
Victoria
Supreme Court
County Court
Magistrates' Court
List of Victorian courts and tribunals
Queensland
Supreme Court
District Court
Magistrates' Court
List of Queensland courts and tribunals
Western Australia
Supreme Court
Family Court
District Court
Magistrates Court
List of Western Australian courts and tribunals
South Australia
Supreme Court
District Court
Magistrates' Court
List of South Australian courts and tribunals
Tasmania
Supreme Court
Magistrates' Court
List of Tasmanian courts and tribunals
Australian Capital Territory
Supreme Court
Magistrates Court
List of Australian Capital Territory courts and tribunals
Northern Territory
Supreme Court
Magistrates Court
List of Northern Territory courts and tribunals
Norfolk Island
Supreme Court
Court of Petty Sessions
[show]
v
t
e
Australian quasi-judicial tribunals
Commonwealth
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT)
New South Wales
New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT)
Victoria
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)
Queensland
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT)
Western Australia
State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT)
South Australia
South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT)
Tasmania
Various
Anti-Discrimination Tribunal
Mental Health Tribunal
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
Mining Tribunal
Motor Accidents Compensation Tribunal
Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal)
Australian Capital Territory
ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT)
Northern Territory
Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NTCAT)
[show]
v
t
e
Politics of Australia
Commonwealth
Monarch
Governor-General
Prime Minister
Cabinet (Shadow Cabinet)
Executive Council
Ministry
Foreign relations
Parliament
House of Representatives
Senate
Opposition Leader
High Court
Lower courts
Constitution
Statute of Westminster
Australia Act
Federal elections
pre-1969
1969
1972
1974
1975
1977
1980
1983
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1998
2001
2004
2007
2010
2013
2016
next
by-elections
State/Territory
governments
Governors and Administrators
Premiers and Chief Ministers
Parliaments and Assemblies
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
ACT
NT
State/Territory
elections
Vic 2014
NSW 2015
ACT 2016
NT 2016
WA 2017
Qld 2017
Tas 2018
SA 2018
Vic 2018
NSW 2019
ACT 2020
NT 2020
WA 2021
Qld 2020
Tas 2022
SA 2022
Timeline of
Elections
Amalgamated Timeline
Local government
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
Political parties
Coalition (Liberal, National, Liberal National, Country Liberal)
Conservatives
Greens
Hinch
Katter
Labor
Liberal Democrat
One Nation
Xenophon
Other parties
Political terminology
Bjelkemander
Branch stacking
Casual vacancies
Caucus revolt
Champagne socialist
Contempt of Parliament
Despatch box
Donkey vote
Dorothy Dixer
Double dissolution
Faceless men
Group voting ticket
Hardworking families
How-to-vote card
Independent politicians
Kirribilli agreement
Langer vote
Leadership spill
Mortgage belt
Nationalism
Parliamentary secretary
Responsible government
Stolen Generations
Working family
Worm
[show]
v
t
e
Australia articles
History
Timeline
Bibliography
Prehistory
Archaeology
European Exploration
Territorial evolution
1788–1850
1851–1900
1901–1945
Since 1945
By topic
Constitutional
Diplomatic
Economic
Federation
Immigration
Indigenous
Military
Monarchy
Railway
Geography
Climate
Continent
Deserts
Environment
issues
Earthquakes
Flora
Fauna
Forests
Geology
Islands
Mountains
Regions
Protected areas
Rivers
Subdivisions
States and Territories
Capitals
Cities
Politics
Constitution
Courts
Elections
Donations
Electoral system
Parties
Federal budget
Foreign relations
Government
Governor-General
Human rights
Intersex
LGBT
Transgender
Intelligence and security
Law
Constitution
Judiciary
Enforcement
Military
Monarchy
National debt
Parliament
Public Service
Women
Government leaders
Government ministers
Economy
Agriculture
Dollar (currency)
Energy
Gross state product
Home ownership
Public housing
Household income
Manufacturing
Media
Mining
Poverty
Reserve Bank
Stock Exchange
Superannuation
Taxation
Telecommunications
Tourism
Transportation
Welfare system
Society
Crime
Demographics
Education
Ethnic groups
Health care
Homelessness
Immigration
Languages
Religion
Women
Culture
Architecture
Art
Arts
Australian English
Cinema
Cuisine
Dance
Literature
Music
Public holidays
Radio
Sport
Symbols
Television
Theatre
Outline
Index
Book
Category
Portal
[show]
v
t
e
Judiciaries of Oceania
Sovereign states
Australia
Federated States of Micronesia
Fiji
Kiribati
Marshall Islands
Nauru
New Zealand
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Tonga
Tuvalu
Vanuatu
Associated states
of New Zealand
Cook Islands
Niue
Dependencies
and other territories
American Samoa
Christmas Island
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Easter Island
French Polynesia
Guam
Hawaii
New Caledonia
Norfolk Island
Northern Mariana Islands
Pitcairn Islands
Tokelau
Wallis and Futuna
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judiciary_of_Australia&oldid=838474019"
Categories:
Government of Australia
Australian law
Judiciary of Australia
Courts of Australia
Hidden categories:
EngvarB from October 2017
Use dmy dates from October 2017
Use Australian English from April 2018
All Wikipedia articles written in Australian English
Articles needing additional references from December 2013
All articles needing additional references
Articles needing additional references from September 2010
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 27 April 2018, at 07:36.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

value: td

attrs: class href

values: Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1

value: span

value: small

value: tr

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Refimprove

values: Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942

values:
/wiki/Australia_Act
mw-redirect
Australia Act

values: font-size: 105%; padding: 0px 0px 0.4em; text-align: left; display: none; text-align:center;

values:
/wiki/Senate_(Australia)
mw-redirect
Senate (Australia)

values: Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives

values: List of Australian Leaders of the Opposition

values:
/wiki/Australian_court_hierarchy
mw-redirect
Australian court hierarchy

values:
/wiki/Laws_of_Australia
mw-redirect
Laws of Australia

values:
/wiki/Australian_electoral_system
mw-redirect
Australian electoral system

values: Divisions of the Australian House of Representatives

values: Parliaments of the Australian states and territories

values: Electoral systems of the Australian states and territories

values: Local government areas of New South Wales

values: Local government areas of Western Australia

values: Local government areas of South Australia

values: Local government areas of the Northern Territory

values: padding:0.3em 0.4em 0.3em;font-weight:bold;border-top: 1px solid #aaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaa;

values: Template talk:Politics of Australia sidebar

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values: Edit section: Australian court hierarchy

values: Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

values: New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

values:
/wiki/Magistrates%27_Court_of_Tasmania
mw-redirect
Magistrates' Court of Tasmania

values: Magistrates Court of the Northern Territory

values:
/wiki/Small_claims
mw-redirect
Small claims

values:
/wiki/Administrative_review
mw-redirect
Administrative review

values: List of Commonwealth courts and tribunals

values: Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales

values: Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (page does not exist)

values: Western Australia Industrial Relations Commission

values: New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal

values: Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (page does not exist)

values: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal

values: Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

values: South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

values: State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia

values: List of New South Wales courts and tribunals

values: List of Northern Territory courts and tribunals

values: List of South Australian courts and tribunals

values: List of Western Australian courts and tribunals

values: Template talk:Australian court hierarchy

values:
/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Australia
mw-redirect
Commonwealth of Australia

values: Edit section: Superior and inferior courts

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: Edit section: Federal Court of Australia

values:
/wiki/Stare_decisis
mw-redirect
Stare decisis

values: Edit section: Federal Circuit Court of Australia

values: Edit section: State and territory courts and tribunals

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Unreferenced

values: Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

values: Flag of the Australian Capital Territory.svg

values: Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (page does not exist)

attrs: align border cellpadding cellspacing width style

values: margin: 0 0 1em 1em; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px #aaaaaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 95%;

values: display:table-cell;padding:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em;vertical-align:middle

values: mw-stack mobile-float-reset noprint portal plainlist tright

values: box-sizing: border-box; float:right; overflow: hidden; margin: 1px; margin:0.5em 0 0.5em 1em;border:solid #aaa 1px

values:
/wiki/Victorian_bar
mw-redirect
Victorian bar

values: Kirk v Industrial Court of NSW (page does not exist)

values: Attorney-General v Finch (page does not exist)

values: Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No 2)

values: Re McJannet; Ex Parte Minister for Employment Training & Industrial Relations (Qld) (page does not exist)

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
plainlist
padding:0 0.1em 0.4em;text-align:left;

values: float:right;clear:right;width:auto;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Current Australian Commonwealth ministry

values:
navbox-image
8
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

values: Australian Capital Territory general election, 2016

values: Northern Territory general election, 2016

values: Australian Capital Territory general election, 2020

values: Northern Territory general election, 2020

values: Category:Political terminology in Australia

values: Casual vacancies in the Australian Parliament

values: List of female heads of government in Australia

values: List of female cabinet ministers of Australia

values: List of Australian states and territories by gross state product

values: Median household income in Australia and New Zealand

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Template talk:Judiciaries of Oceania (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of the Federated States of Micronesia (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Judiciary_of_Fiji
mw-redirect
Judiciary of Fiji

values: Judiciary of the Marshall Islands (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of Nauru (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of Papua New Guinea (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of Samoa (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of Tonga (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of Tuvalu (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of Vanuatu (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of the Cook Islands (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of Christmas Island (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of Easter Island (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of French Polynesia (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of New Caledonia (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of Norfolk Island (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of the Northern Mariana Islands (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of the Pitcairn Islands (page does not exist)

values: Judiciary of Wallis and Futuna (page does not exist)

values: Category:Use dmy dates from October 2017

values: Category:Use Australian English from April 2018

values: Category:All Wikipedia articles written in Australian English

values: Category:Articles needing additional references from December 2013

values: Category:All articles needing additional references

values: Category:Articles needing additional references from September 2010

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Judiciary_of_Australia
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Judiciary_of_Australia rootpage-Judiciary_of_Australia skin-vector action-view