Federal Court of Australia
DEFENCE FORCE DISCIPLINE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Thompson v Chief of Navy [2015] ADFDAT 1 Citation: Thompson v Chief of Navy [2015] ADFDAT 1
Appeal from: General Court Martial
Parties: MICHAEL DANIEL THOMPSON v CHIEF OF NAVY
File number: DFDAT 1 of 2014
Judges: TRACEY (PRESIDENT), BYRNE (DEPUTY PRESIDENT) AND LOGAN JJ
Date of judgment: 22 May 2015
Catchwords: DEFENCE – whether convictions recorded following pleas of guilty should be quashed – whether plea bargain based on incorrect construction of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) resulted in miscarriage of justice
Legislation: Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) ss 67, 125(3), 125(6), Schedule 2 Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955 (Cth) ss 21(1)(b), 23
Cases cited: Borsa v The Queen [2003] WASCA 254 – cited Collins v The Queen (1980) 31 ALR 257 – cited Hura v The Queen (2001) 121 A Crim R 472 – cited Liberti v The Queen (1991) 55 A Crim R 120 – cited Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501 – cited Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 – considered R v Carkeet [2009] 1 Qd R 190 – cited R v Chiron [1980] 1 NSWLR 218 – cited R v Collis (1989) 43 A Crim R 371 – cited R v KCH (2001) 124 A Crim R 233 – considered R v Kennedy [2014] NSWSC 1921 – cited R v McLean (2001) 121 A Crim R 484 – considered R v Murphy [1965] VR 187 – cited R v Pugh (2005) 158 A Crim R 302 – cited R v Sagiv (1986) 22 A Crim R 73 – cited R v Wade [2012] 2 Qd R 31 – cited R v Wilkes (2001) 122 A Crim R 310 – considered Sauer v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 81 – 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