High Court of Australia
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
KIEFEL CJ, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE, NETTLE, GORDON AND EDELMAN JJ
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA APPELLANT
AND
HELICOPTER RESOURCES PTY LTD & ORS RESPONDENTS
Commonwealth of Australia v Helicopter Resources Pty Ltd [2020] HCA 16 Date of Hearing: 10 October 2019 & 5 February 2020 Date of Judgment: 24 April 2020 S217/2019
ORDER
1. The first respondent's application for leave to file a notice of contention is refused.
2. Appeal allowed.
3. Set aside orders 1 and 2(a) of the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia made on 15 February 2019 and, in their place, order that the appeal to the Full Court be dismissed.
4. The appellant pay the first respondent's reasonable costs on a solicitor/client basis.
On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia
Representation
S P Donaghue QC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, with T M Begbie and J D Watson for the appellant (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
J T Gleeson SC with T J Brennan and K I H Lindeman for the first respondent (instructed by Norton White)
Submitting appearances for the second and third respondents
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Commonwealth of Australia v Helicopter Resources Pty Ltd
Criminal practice – Accusatorial system of criminal justice – Companion rule – Where subpoena issued for employee to attend to give evidence at coronial inquest into manner and cause of another employee's death – Where employer and Commonwealth of Australia prosecuted for alleged failures to comply with duty to ensure worker health and safety – Where s 87(1)(b) of Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) relevantly entailed that representation by employee of party relating to matter within scope of employment taken as admission by that party – Whether invocation of investigative power to compel employee to give evidence about matter with respect to which employer stands charged amounts to compelling employer to give evidence contrary to rule that accused not required to assist Crown in proving its case.
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