Federal Court of Australia
DEFENCE FORCE DISCIPLINE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Angre v Chief of Navy (No 3) [2017] ADFDAT 2 Appeal from: General Court Martial
File number: DFDAT 3 of 2015
Judges: TRACEY J (PRESIDENT), LOGAN (DEPUTY PRESIDENT) AND BRERETON (MEMBER) JJ
Date of judgment: 27 March 2017
Catchwords: DEFENCE – application for extension of time to appeal – application for leave to appeal against convictions by court martial – whether convictions recorded following pleas of guilty should be quashed – whether a material irregularity in the course of the proceedings before the court martial and substantial miscarriage of justice under s 23(1)(c) of the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955 (Cth) – where convictions based on a plea bargain – whether inadequate advice from counsel as to reasonably available defences – whether prosecutorial misconduct – whether absence of a genuine consciousness of guilt – whether sentencing by way of a Defence Force magistrate used as an inducement to plead where that forum was not available as a matter of law
Legislation: Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 24(1) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 8, 20(1) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) sch 1 Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) ss 61(3), 61(6), 125(3), 125(6) Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955 (Cth) ss 20(1), 23(1)(c), 24 Cases cited: Angre v Chief of Navy (No 1) [2016] ADFDAT 1 – cited Angre v Chief of Navy (No 2) [2016] ADFDAT 2 – cited Attorney-General's Reference (No 6 of 1980) [1981] QB 715 – cited Chief of Navy v Angre [2016] FCAFC 171 – cited Coulter v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 350 – considered Davis v Chief of Army [2011] ADFDAT 1 – cited Kumar v The Queen [2014] VSCA 102 – considered Lergesner v Carroll [1991] 1 Qd R 206 – cited McLean v The Queen (2001) 121 A Crim R 484 – cited Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501 – cited Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 – cited R v Aitken [1992] 1 WLR 1006 – cited R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 – cited R v Jones (1986) Cr App R 375 – cited R v Percali (1986) 42 SASR 46 – considered Saik v The Queen [2004] EWCA Crim 2936 – cited Thompson v Chief of Navy [2015] ADFDAT 1 – considered Wilkes v The Queen (2001) 122 A Crim R 310 – cited Williams v The Queen (1990) 50 A Crim R 213 – 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