Audsley v The Queen

AUDSLEY
v
THE QUEEN
[2018] HCASL 290
M113/2018

The applicant requires an extension of time within which to file the application for special leave to appeal. The applicant has not identified a question of principle of general importance sufficient to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal and otherwise advances no arguable ground of appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Priest JA, Maxwell P and Beach JA agreeing) refusing the applicant's application for leave to appeal against conviction of one count of aggravated burglary, one count of common assault, one count of recklessly causing serious injury and one count of armed robbery. An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospect of success. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension that is sought. Special leave 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.

G.A.A. Nettle
10 October 2018 M.M. Gordon

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Audsley, sought an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal against his conviction by the Supreme Court of Victoria. Audsley was convicted on one count of aggravated burglary, one count of common assault, one count of recklessly causing serious injury, and one count of armed robbery. The court had to decide whether to grant the applicant an extension of time to file his application for special leave to appeal and whether the application itself had any prospect of success. The primary issue before the court was whether there were sufficient grounds to warrant an extension of time and whether the application had any arguable merit.

The court held that Audsley had not identified a question of principle of general importance sufficient to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. Additionally, Audsley had not advanced any arguable ground of appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal did not have any prospect of success, and it would be futile to grant the extension sought. The court found that it was appropriate to refuse special leave and to dismiss the application.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed Audsley's application for an extension of time to file his application for special leave to appeal. The Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application, in accordance with rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established