DG v The King

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

DG

v

THE KING

[2024] HCASL 148
S33/2024

  1. The applicant applies for an extension of time in which to seek special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales (Wilson, Fagan and Sweeney JJ), dismissing an appeal from a decision of the District Court of New South Wales (Judge O'Rourke SC).

  2. The proposed appeal has insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant an extension of time.

  3. Special leave to appeal is refused.

    Gageler CJ

    Gordon J

    Edelman J

    Steward J

    Gleeson J

    Jagot J

    Beech-Jones J

    9 May 2024

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DG v The King 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
[2024] HCASL 148
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the court was made by DG, who sought an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. This appeal was in turn an appeal from a decision of the District Court of New South Wales. The appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal had been dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the applicant sought special leave to appeal this decision to the High Court of Australia. The applicant's application was refused, with the court holding that the appeal had insufficient prospects of success and would be futile.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application for special leave to appeal should be granted, and in particular whether it had sufficient prospects of success. The court held that the applicant's appeal had insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave, and that an extension of time would be futile. The court also noted that the proposed appeal was not a significant matter of public importance, and that the applicant had not identified any error in the Court of Criminal Appeal's reasoning that would warrant a grant of special leave.

The court noted that the Court of Criminal Appeal had thoroughly considered the applicant's case, and had found that the appeal had no reasonable prospects of success. The court held that the applicant's appeal was not a significant matter of public importance, and that the applicant had not identified any error in the Court of Criminal Appeal's reasoning that would warrant a grant of special leave. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant an extension of time. The court held that it would be futile to grant an extension of time, and that the application for special leave to appeal should be refused.

In light of the above, the court refused the applicant's application for special leave to appeal, and dismissed the application. No extension of time was granted.

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.