Charles Parker - a pseudonym v The Queen

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

CHARLES PARKER - A PSEUDONYM

v

THE QUEEN

[2022] HCASL 133
M19/2022

  1. An extension of time is necessary to enable this application for special leave to appeal to proceed. The appeal foreshadowed by the application would not turn upon the resolution of any issue of general principle. In addition, it does not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The application for special leave should be dismissed. That being so, it would be futile to grant the required extension of time.

  2. 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.

P.A. Keane J.S. Gleeson
18 August 2022
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Charles Parker - a pseudonym v The Queen and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] HCASL 133
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the High Court was an application by Charles Parker, whose identity is protected by the pseudonym, for special leave to appeal a decision made against him. The nature of the dispute involves a conviction and subsequent sentence imposed by a lower court, the details of which are not extensively elaborated upon in the text. The appeal seeks to challenge this decision, though the specifics of the grounds for appeal are not disclosed. The High Court was tasked with determining whether to grant an extension of time for the application to proceed and whether to grant special leave to appeal.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the application for special leave to appeal required an extension of time and whether the application itself had sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave. The Court had to consider the importance of the issues involved and whether they touched upon matters of general principle or had a significant impact on the administration of justice.

The Court found that the appeal did not turn upon any issue of general principle and lacked sufficient prospects of success to justify the grant of special leave. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal should be dismissed. Given this conclusion, the Court held that granting an extension of time for the application would be futile. Accordingly, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order reflecting this decision.

The final orders of the Court were straightforward and decisive. The application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and no extension of time was granted. The order was signed and sealed by the Registrar, effectively concluding the matter before the Court.

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.