Stuart v Chief of Army [2003] ADFDAT 3

DEFENCE FORCE DISCIPLINE APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Stuart v Chief of Army [2003] ADFDAT 3 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – whether chargeduplicitous – whether substantial miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – failure to provide adequate particulars – whether substantial miscarriage of justice DEFENCE AND WAR – Defence Force – service offence – breach of general order – whether provision intended to be obeyed – whether provision applied to circumstances DEFENCE AND WAR – Defence Force – service offence – insubordinate conduct – whether offence of strict liability – whether facts alleged amounted to insubordinate language DEFENCE AND WAR – Defence Force – service offences – Defence Force magistrate – refusal to permit calling of convening authority as witness – whether proceedings infected by apparent or systemic bias Criminal Code (Cth) s 6.1 (1) Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955 (Cth) s 23(1)(c) Defence Force Discipline Act (Cth) ss 26, 29, 103, 127, 152, 154, 180 Defence Force Discipline Rules rr 8(3), 11(5) Findlay v The United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHHR 221 – not followed Fingleton v Ivanoff Pty Ltd (1976) 14 SASR 530 – referred to Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467 – applied Lyle v Christian Ivanoff Pty Ltd (1977) 16 SASR 477 – followed Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ah Hin Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 – applied Minogue of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1999) 166 ALR 129 – applied Parker v Sutherland (1917) 116 LT 820 – applied Quelch v Story (1924) NTJ 46 – referred to R v Bedington [1970] Qd. R. 353 – applied R v Grant and Ors (1957) 2 All ER 694 – distinguished R v Tyler; ex parte Foley (1993-1994) 181 CLR 18 – applied R v Phillips and Lawrence [1967] Qd. R 237 – applied S v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 266 – applied DIANA BETTINA STUART V CHIEF OF ARMY DFDAT 4 OF 2002 HEEREY J (President), UNDERWOOD J (Deputy President) and MILDREN J (Member)