Gould v R

Gould appealed against his conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal, seeking leave to appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeal had previously denied his application for leave to appeal. Gould now sought leave for a second application, despite no changes in circumstances apart from the appointment of new lawyers. The legal issues included whether the prior refusal of leave to appeal created a jurisdictional bar and whether an extension of time should be granted for the second application.

The court examined whether the prior refusal of leave to appeal created a jurisdictional bar that prevented the Court of Criminal Appeal from entertaining a second application. The court considered the principle of finality and the importance of allowing appeals to be determined definitively. The court noted that the prior refusal of leave to appeal was a powerful factor against granting leave for the second application. Additionally, the court considered whether an extension of time should be granted for the second application, weighing factors such as the absence of a material change in circumstances and the need to avoid unnecessary prolongation of proceedings.

The court held that the prior refusal of leave to appeal did not create a jurisdictional bar but significantly influenced the decision on the second application. The court found no material change in circumstances, and the allegations of incompetence of counsel were not substantiated. The court concluded that an extension of time should not be granted, given the importance of finality in criminal appeals. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the extension of time for the second application was refused.

The court ordered that the appeal against the conviction be dismissed and that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed. The court also ordered that the application for an extension of time for the second application be dismissed.