ACT Supreme Court Considers Right to a Fair Trial under ACT Human Rights Act
R v DA [2008] ACTSC 26 (31 Mar 2008)
In an ex tempore judgment delivered by Higgins CJ, the ACT Supreme Court has stated that s 21 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) confers a positive right to a fair trial and thereby modifies the common law which merely provides for the right to be free from an unfair trial.
The decision arose from an application by an accused to vacate a trial date. In the context of this application, Higgins CJ drew a distinction between the common law right to not have an unfair trial (see, eg, Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292) and the positive right under s 21 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) to a fair trial. In Higgins CJ’s view, this is ‘a very different emphasis’. His Honour compared the ACT position with Kirby J’s minority decision in Nudd v The Queen [2006] HCA 9, where, drawing on human rights conventions such as the ICCPR, Kirby J had argued the common law should confer a positive right to a fair trial. The majority considered that the common law merely conferred a right to be free from unfairness. Higgins CJ noted that, ‘We do not have to have that debate in this Territory because that right is conferred by the HRA 2004, thereby modifying the common law accordingly.’ (at [7]).
Having regard to this positive right, to which his Honour gave ‘decisive weight’, together with factors such as there being ‘no prejudice to the Crown or to any Crown witness, or to the trial, the efficiency or otherwise of the trial’, Higgins CJ granted the application to vacate the trial date.
The decision is available at http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgments/da.htm.
This case note was provided by the ACT Human Rights Act Project at ANU (http://acthra.anu.edu.au/)
Landmark decision ordering Shell to cut CO2 emissions from its global operations by 45% overturned by Hague Court of Appeal
On 12 November 2024, the Court of Appeal of the Hague overturned the landmark 2021 decision of the District Court of The Hague (District Court) in Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell, which had ordered Shell to cut CO2 emissions from its global operations by 45% by the end of 2030.
Read more
Young campaigners landmark victory for children’s rights as new coal-fired power generation deemed unconstitutional in South Africa
The High Court of South Africa ruled that the government’s plans to add 1,500 megawatts of new coal-fired power stations were “unlawful and invalid”. In a youth-driven petition brought by three civil society organisations, the Court found that the plans failed to adequately consider the impacts of coal-fired power on children’s rights, particularly their constitutional right to a healthy environment.
Read more
Tribunal found Southern Restaurants imposed unreasonable conditions on a young breast-feeding mother leading to a finding of discrimination
A young breastfeeding mother was found to have been discriminated against by her employer and awarded $90,000 in compensation.
Read more
Acknowledgement of Country
The Human Rights Law Centre acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands across Australia, including the lands of the Wurundjeri, Boon Wurrung, Gadigal, Ngunnawal, Darug and Wadawurrung people where we work from.
We pay our respect to Elders past and present. This land always was, and always will be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land. Sovereignty has never been ceded.
WARNING: This site contains images or names of people who have passed away.