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/)
High Court determines Commonwealth’s liability to native title compensation
In a landmark ruling, the High Court has set an important precedent that the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation to First Nations Peoples if their native title rights have been compromised by certain historical government decisions. In this case, this included government decisions to grant mining leases.
Read more
Political Opinions in the Workplace: the Federal Court finds the ABC unlawfully terminated a journalist’s employment for holding a political opinion on the Gaza conflict
In Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2025] FCA 669, the Federal Court of Australia found that the ABC unlawfully terminated Antoinette Lattouf’s employment for reasons including her political opinion in contravention of s 772(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and breached the ABC Enterprise Agreement 2022 – 2025 by denying her procedural fairness. The Court awarded Ms Lattouf $70,000 in compensation, with any pecuniary penalties to be determined separately.
Read more
Children should be protected by the law, not harmed by it: The Magistrates Court sets aside subpoenas issued to children
In the case of Police v Matthew Jones (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTMC 10 (8 May 2025), Chief Magistrate Walker exercised the Court’s implied power to control its own proceedings by setting aside subpoenas issued to child witnesses. The case establishes that Courts may take the extraordinary step of intervening in prosecutorial discretion to protect children from a special risk of psychological harm.
Read moreACNC: 31 117 719 267 | Connect with the Human Rights Law Centre
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, Cammeraygal, Darug, Wadawurrung, Turrbal and Jagera 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.