Cesan v The Queen
Encyclopedia
Cesan v The Queen 83 ALJR 43 was a decision handed down in the High Court of Australia
on 3 September 2008 quashing the convictions of two men for conspiring to import a commercial quantity of narcotics. The Court subsequently delivered reasons for its decision on 6 November 2008.
The appellants were convicted in the District Court of New South Wales
of conspiring to import a commercial quantity of the drug ecstasy
. On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
it was alleged that the trial judge had been asleep during some parts of the trial when evidence was being given. While the Court of Criminal Appeal found that the judge "was nodding off and on occasion actually asleep from time to time during the trial" it said that this did not necessarily mean that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The Court held (by a 2:1 majority) that "there was no failure of process of such a kind as to make it impossible for the Court to decide that the convictions were just" and accordingly upheld the convictions.http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2007/273.html
The High Court granted the appellants special leave to appeal on 16 May 2008.http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/HCATrans/2008/191.html The appeal was heard before the Full Court on 3 September 2008 which gave orders allowing the appeals, quashing the convictions and remitting the cases for retrials.http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2008/320.html The Court indicated that it would publish its reasons at a later date.
High Court of Australia
The High Court of Australia is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, has the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the States, and...
on 3 September 2008 quashing the convictions of two men for conspiring to import a commercial quantity of narcotics. The Court subsequently delivered reasons for its decision on 6 November 2008.
The appellants were convicted in the District Court of New South Wales
District Court of New South Wales
The District Court of New South Wales has jurisdiction to hear most indictable offences . It hears appeals from the Local Court and civil claims up to A$750 000. In some circumstances the amount may be higher, e.g. with the consent of the parties or in motor accident claims etc...
of conspiring to import a commercial quantity of the drug ecstasy
Methylenedioxymethamphetamine
MDMA is an entactogenic drug of the phenethylamine and amphetamine class of drugs. In popular culture, MDMA has become widely known as "ecstasy" , usually referring to its street pill form, although this term may also include the presence of possible adulterants...
. On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Supreme Court of New South Wales
The Supreme Court of New South Wales is the highest state court of the Australian State of New South Wales...
it was alleged that the trial judge had been asleep during some parts of the trial when evidence was being given. While the Court of Criminal Appeal found that the judge "was nodding off and on occasion actually asleep from time to time during the trial" it said that this did not necessarily mean that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The Court held (by a 2:1 majority) that "there was no failure of process of such a kind as to make it impossible for the Court to decide that the convictions were just" and accordingly upheld the convictions.http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2007/273.html
The High Court granted the appellants special leave to appeal on 16 May 2008.http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/HCATrans/2008/191.html The appeal was heard before the Full Court on 3 September 2008 which gave orders allowing the appeals, quashing the convictions and remitting the cases for retrials.http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2008/320.html The Court indicated that it would publish its reasons at a later date.