This application seeks special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. In light of the decision of this Court in R v Falzon (2018) 92 ALJR 701; [2018] HCA 29, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of Maxwell ACJ and Weinberg JA. Accordingly, special leave to appeal should be refused.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.
S.J. Gageler 14 November 2018
P.A. Keane
Details
AGLC
Arico v The Queen [2018] HCASL 360
Case
[2018] HCASL 360
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal a decision made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant, Arico, seeks to appeal the court's judgment on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the decision of the High Court in R v Falzon (2018) 92 ALJR 701; [2018] HCA 29. The applicant argues that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was incorrect and that special leave should be granted to challenge it.
The legal issues that arose for consideration by the court were whether the judgment of the Court of Appeal was inconsistent with the High Court's decision in Falzon, and whether special leave should be granted to appeal. The court held that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was correct and that there was no reason to doubt its correctness in light of the High Court's decision. The court also held that special leave to appeal should be refused.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles set out in the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) and the relevant authorities. The court held that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was consistent with the decision of the High Court in Falzon, and that there was no reason to doubt its correctness. The court also noted that the Court of Appeal had carefully considered the relevant authorities and had reached a conclusion that was consistent with the law.
The final orders of the court were that special leave to appeal should be refused, and that the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The court held that there were no grounds for the applicant to appeal, and that the judgment of the Court of Appeal should stand.