Bond v The Queen
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2018) |
| Bond v The Queen | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Bond v The Queen |
| Decided | 14 August 1992 |
| Citations | [2000] HCA 13, (2000) 201CLR 213; 169 ALR 607 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action | The Queen v Bond (1997) 24 ACSR 518; (1997) 95 A Crim R 246 |
| Appealed from | WA Court of Criminal Appeal |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne JJ |
| Case opinions | |
| (6:0) The authority contained in s17 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth) did not give the Commonwealth DPP the power to institute appeals in state courts. (per curiam) (6:0) The common law principles relating to the validity of acts done by an invalidly appointed public officer had no application. (per curiam) | |
Bond v The Queen,[1] was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the power of the Commonwealth DPP to institute appeals in state courts.
Background
[edit]Alan Bond had pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court of Western Australia to two charges of failing to act honestly in his capacity as an officer of a company, with intent to defraud the company and its shareholders. He was sentenced to a total of four years imprisonment. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed his sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeal, of which the court allowed the appeal and sentenced Alan Bond to seven years imprisonment.[1]
Alan Bond appealed to the High Court on the grounds that the Director of Public Prosecutions did not have the authority to appeal the sentence imposed on him.
Judgement
[edit]The appeal was allowed.
References
[edit]- ^ a b Bond v The Queen [2000] HCA 13, (2000) 201 CLR 213; (2000) 169 ALR 607.
 | This article related to Australian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |