Cesan v The Queen
judgement of the High Court of Australia
Cesan v The Queen 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 because the trial judge was asleep during parts of the trial. 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.
The High Court granted the appellants special leave to appeal on 16 May 2008. 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. The Court indicated that it would publish its reasons at a later date.
The public source identifies “Cesan v The Queen” as judgement of the High Court of Australia. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Cesan, Queen and judgement.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Cesan v The Queen”, the useful work is to connect “judgement of the High Court of Australia” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 5, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5065399. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2008.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Cesan v The Queen”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Cesan v The Queen primary sources, Cesan v The Queen archive and Cesan research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Cesan v The Queen”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Cesan v The Queen” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.