As v The King

AS
v
THE KING
[2024] HCASL 48
S99/2023

The applicant applies for an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal against orders of a majority of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales (Adamson and Hamill JJ, Cavanagh J dissenting) dismissing the applicant's appeal against conviction, on the grounds that the guilty verdicts "were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence".
The proposed appeal does not raise any question of general importance and it is not otherwise in the interests of justice for leave to be granted. The applicant does not identify any cogent reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the majority or any feature which requires consideration by this Court in the interests of the administration of justice, generally or in this case. It would be futile to grant the extension.
Special leave to appeal is refused.
Gageler CJ
Gordon J
Edelman J
Steward J
Gleeson J
Jagot J
Beech-Jones J
7 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an applicant seeking an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal against the decisions of the majority of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the majority, with one dissenting judge, and concerned the conviction for which the applicant argued the guilty verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The application for special leave to appeal was brought before the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the applicant an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal, given that the application did not raise any question of general importance and was not in the interests of justice.

The High Court considered the application and found that the applicant did not provide any cogent reason to doubt the correctness of the majority decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. Furthermore, the court noted that the proposed appeal did not raise any questions of general importance and there were no features requiring consideration by the High Court in the interests of the administration of justice. The court held that granting the extension would be futile and, therefore, refused the application for an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal.

The court's reasoning focused on the lack of merit in the applicant’s arguments and the absence of any significant factors that would warrant an extension of time. The decision highlights the stringent criteria that must be met for special leave to appeal to be granted, particularly when the application does not present any substantial grounds or matters of general importance. The court's refusal to grant the extension is consistent with the principles governing special leave applications and the need to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the appellate process.

The final order of the court was to refuse the application for an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal. The decision underscores the High Court’s role in managing the caseload and ensuring that appeals are limited to those that are of significant importance or have broader implications for the law.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established