Bee v The King

Case [2024] HCASL 100

BEE

v

THE KING

[2024] HCASL 100
B5/2024

  1. This application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Boddice JA, Morrison and Dalton JJA agreeing) requires an extension of time. The proposed appeal concerns only the question whether a direction of the nature of that given in Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258, which was not sought at trial, should have been given in the circumstances of the case. No issue of general principle arises. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant an extension of time.

  2. Special leave to appeal is refused.

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

    11 April 2024

Continue reading Bee v The King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bee v The King [2024] HCASL 100
Case
[2024] HCASL 100
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bee v The King, the applicant sought special leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The case involves the interpretation and application of a particular legal direction, as referenced in the case of Burns v The Queen. The applicant is appealing the refusal of an extension of time for this application. The primary issue before the High Court was whether special leave to appeal should be granted, given the specific nature of the legal question involved.

The High Court considered whether the proposed appeal raised any issues of general principle or significance that would warrant an extension of time. The court determined that the case was limited to a specific legal direction that was not sought at the trial, and did not involve broader legal principles. As such, the court found that granting an extension of time would be futile. The Court concluded that no general principle was at stake in the applicant’s appeal, which focused narrowly on the specific direction in question.

Accordingly, the High Court refused the application for special leave to appeal. The Court was of the view that the proposed appeal did not engage with broader legal principles or issues of general significance. Instead, it was confined to a particular legal direction and did not present a matter of wider public importance. As a result, the application for an extension of time was denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeal was upheld.

No further orders were made by the Court. The refusal of special leave to appeal effectively concluded the matter, leaving the Court of Appeal's decision intact.

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.