Burgoyne v The Queen

BURGOYNE
v
THE QUEEN
[2021] HCASL 123
A9/2021

The applicant requires an extension of time within which to file an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Kourakis CJ, Stanley and Doyle JJ) dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Criminal Division of the District Court of South Australia (Judge Barrett).
The Court of Criminal Appeal's decision is not attended by sufficient doubt and the application raises no question of principle to warrant a grant of special leave. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant the extension of time sought.
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
24 June 2021 S.H.P. Steward

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Burgoyne v The Queen involves the applicant, Burgoyne, who sought an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal. Burgoyne's appeal was originally dismissed by the Criminal Division of the District Court of South Australia, and the subsequent appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia was also dismissed. The High Court was tasked with determining whether an extension of time should be granted to Burgoyne to file an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision.

The central legal issue was whether there was sufficient doubt or a question of principle in the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal to the High Court. The court also had to consider whether granting an extension of time would be futile, given the nature of the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision.

The court found that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal did not contain sufficient doubt to warrant a grant of special leave. Additionally, the application did not raise any question of principle that would warrant such a grant. Consequently, the court concluded that it would be futile to grant the extension of time sought by Burgoyne. The High Court noted that pursuant to rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), it was appropriate to dismiss the application. The Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

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