Federal Court of Australia
DEFENCE FORCE DISCIPLINE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Low v Chief of Navy [2011] ADFDAT 3 Citation: Low v Chief of Navy [2011] ADFDAT 3
Appeal from: Restricted Court Martial
Parties: JASON GEORGE LOW v CHIEF OF NAVY
File number: DFDAT 1 of 2011
Judges: TRACEY J - PRESIDENT, WHITE JA - DEPUTY PRESIDENT & MILDREN J - MEMBER
Date of judgment: 21 November 2011
Catchwords: MILITARY LAW – whether Court Martial could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt offence had occurred – whether conviction unsafe or unsatisfactory – whether substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred – refusal of application to sever pleas – unfairness – warning about credibility of complainant's evidence
Legislation: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 90B Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 60 Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) ss 32, 33, 60, 61, 132, 141 Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955 (Cth) ss 20, 23 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 66, 128, 135, 137, 164, 165
Cases cited: Bullen (1998) 102 A Crim R 74 cited, compared De Jesus v The Queen (1986) 61 ALJR 1 considered, compared HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334 cited, applied KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221 cited M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 applied MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606 applied Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297 applied R v BD (1997) 94 A Crim R 131 referred to R v CHS (2006) 159 A Crim R 560 cited R v Ditroia & Tucci [1981] VR 247 cited SKA v R (2011) 276 ALR 423 cited Stirland v DPP [1944] AC 315 cited Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528 cited
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate