High Court of Australia
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GLEESON CJ,
McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJ
PETER ANDREW FITTOCK APPLICANT
AND
THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
Fittock v The Queen [2003] HCA 19
Date of Order: 13 February 2003
Date of Publication of Reasons: 10 April 2003
D7/2001
ORDER
Application dismissed.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory
Representation:
G D Wendler with S H MacFarlane for the applicant (instructed by Laurence J Fittock)
T I Pauling QC, Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory with N Rogers for the respondent (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Territory))
Interveners:
D M J Bennett QC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth with C J Horan intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
R J Meadows QC, Solicitor-General for the State of Western Australia and J C Pritchard intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia (instructed by Crown Solicitor for the State of Western Australia)
R A Pepper intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales (instructed by Crown Solicitor for the State of New South Wales)
S M Crennan QC with R M Doyle intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of Victoria (instructed by Victorian Government Solicitor)
S J Gageler SC intervening on behalf of the Australian Capital Territory Attorney-General (instructed by ACT Government Solicitor)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Fittock v The Queen
Constitutional law (Cth) – Indictable offence – Trial by jury – Whether law enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory a "law of the Commonwealth" – Whether s 80 of the Constitution applies to trials on indictment in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory for offences against a law of the Commonwealth – Whether Territory law permitting reserve jurors, who are discharged prior to commencement of jury deliberations, is inconsistent with s 80 of the Constitution.
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