Applicant S13/2024 v The King

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

APPLICANT S13/2024

v

THE KING

[2024] HCASL 116
S13/2024

  1. The applicant applies for an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales (Wright J, Yehia and Chen JJ) made on 13 June 2023, upholding an appeal from the District Court of NSW (Traill DCJ).

  2. This case does not raise a question of law of general importance and the administration of justice would not be advanced by a grant of special leave. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant an extension of time.

  3. Special leave to appeal is refused.

    Gageler CJ
    Gordon J
    Edelman J
    Steward J
    Gleeson J
    Jagot J
    Beech-Jones J

    11 April 2024

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Applicant S13/2024 v The King and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2024] HCASL 116
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, S13/2024, sought an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. This judgment upheld an appeal from the District Court of NSW, which had been presided over by Traill DCJ. The case did not present any questions of law of general importance, and it was concluded that granting special leave would not contribute to the administration of justice. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was denied.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal. The court considered whether the case raised any significant legal questions that warranted the grant of special leave. Additionally, the court examined whether the administration of justice would benefit from allowing the extension.

The court reasoned that the case did not involve any questions of law of general importance and that granting special leave would not serve the interests of justice. The applicant's appeal did not present any novel or significant legal issues that would benefit from higher court scrutiny. As such, the court determined that it would be futile to grant an extension of time. The decision to refuse special leave to appeal was based on the lack of general importance of the legal issues and the absence of any benefit to the administration of justice.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the applicant's application for an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal. The judgment was delivered on 11 April 2024, with the majority of the judges concurring in the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.