Federal Court of Australia
DEFENCE FORCE DISCIPLINE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Leith v Chief of Army [2013] ADFDAT 4 Citation: Leith v Chief of Army [2013] ADFDAT 4
Appeal from: Defence Force Magistrate
Parties: OLIVER SEBASTIAN LEITH v CHIEF OF ARMY
File number: DFDAT 7 of 2012
Judges: TRACEY, COWDROY & LOGAN JJ
Date of judgment: 20 August 2013
Catchwords: DEFENCE – convictions relating to theft of ammunitions and disobedience of lawful command – whether Judge Advocate erred in admitting evidence – consideration of "special circumstances" under s 101JA(3) of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 ("the DFDA") – balancing the interests of justice – double jeopardy – whether the Judge Advocate erred in convicting the appellant of theft contrary to s 47C of the DFDA in light of conviction under s 34 of the Explosives Act 1999 (Qld) – consideration of "substantially the same" under s 144 of the DFDA
Legislation: Army Act 1955 (UK) – s 134 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – s 23V Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) Criminal Code 1995(Cth) – s 131.1 Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) – ss 26, 27, 45, 47C, 47E, 47M, 101JA, 142, 144, 152, Sch 6 Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955 (Cth) – ss 21, Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – s 90, 138 Explosions Act 1999 (Qld) – ss 34, 144 National Defence Act 1985 (Can) – s 66 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – ss 12, 44 The Constitution (Cth) – s 51(vi) Theft Act 1968 (UK) – s 3 Defence Force Discipline Bill 1982 – Explanatory Memorandum Report of the 1973 Working Party in respect of a Defence Force Disciplinary Code
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