Gould v The King - [2023] HCASL 205

GOULD
v
THE KING
[2023] HCASL 205
S66/2023
S67/2023

These applications seek special leave to appeal from two decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
Application S66/2023 seeks special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal (Bathurst CJ, Davies and Adamson JJ) on 10 May 2021, which, inter alia, refused the Applicant leave to appeal his conviction. None of the proposed grounds concerns issues that were raised before that Court. It is not in the interests of justice to grant special leave in those circumstances. Accordingly, the application should be dismissed.
Application S67/2023 seeks special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal (Bell CJ, Rothman and Garling JJ) on 10 May 2023, which refused the Applicant an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal against his conviction. Assuming that Court had jurisdiction to hear that application, the Applicant has insufficient prospects of success in demonstrating error on the part of that Court in refusing leave. Accordingly, the application should be dismissed.
The applications for special leave to appeal are refused.
Gageler CJ
Gordon J
Edelman J
Steward J
Gleeson J
Jagot J
Beech-Jones J
7 December 2023

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gould 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: [2023] HCASL 205
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Gould v The King, the applicants, Mr. Gould, sought special leave to appeal against decisions made by the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The first application, S66/2023, pertained to a decision rendered by Bathurst CJ, Davies, and Adamson JJ on 10 May 2021, which denied the applicant leave to appeal his conviction. The second application, S67/2023, sought leave to appeal a decision by Bell CJ, Rothman, and Garling JJ on 10 May 2023, which refused an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the applicant's conviction. The crux of the matter involved the applicant's bid to overturn the decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The court was tasked with determining whether the application for special leave to appeal should be granted, considering the criteria for such leave and the interests of justice. In S66/2023, the court examined whether the proposed grounds for appeal, none of which had been raised before the Court of Criminal Appeal, warranted special leave. In S67/2023, the court assessed whether the applicant had sufficient prospects of demonstrating error in the Court of Criminal Appeal's refusal to extend the time for seeking leave to appeal. The court also considered whether granting special leave would be in the interests of justice.

The High Court dismissed both applications for special leave to appeal. In S66/2023, the court found that it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave as none of the proposed grounds for appeal had been previously raised. For S67/2023, the court concluded that the applicant did not have sufficient prospects of demonstrating error in the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision. Consequently, both applications were refused. The High Court's decision was delivered by Gageler CJ, Gordon J, Edelman J, Steward J, Gleeson J, Jagot J, and Beech-Jones J on 7 December 2023.

Orders