Holder v The Queen

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

HOLDER

v

THE QUEEN

[2020] HCASL 27
A22/2019

  1. The application for special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia does not raise any question of sentencing principle, does not engage the interests of the administration of justice, and has insufficient prospects of success. Hence, it would be futile to grant the extension of time which is sought.

  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.

V.M Bell G.A.A Nettle
12 February 2020
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Holder 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
[2020] HCASL 27
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns an application for special leave to appeal against a decision made by the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The applicant, Holder, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence, however, the application was denied by the High Court of Australia. The primary focus of the application was the perceived unfairness of the sentencing process, as well as the alleged misapplication of legal principles during the original trial. The High Court was required to determine whether the application met the necessary criteria for special leave to appeal, considering the principles of futility and the interests of the administration of justice.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included whether the application raised a question of sentencing principle, whether it engaged the interests of the administration of justice, and whether there were sufficient prospects of success. The court examined the applicant's arguments and the grounds upon which the application was based. It was determined that the application did not satisfy any of the required criteria, and therefore, did not warrant special leave to appeal.

The High Court found that the application did not raise any question of sentencing principle, nor did it engage the interests of the administration of justice. Furthermore, the prospects of success for the application were deemed to be insufficient. As a result, the court concluded that granting the extension of time sought by the applicant would be futile. The High Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Holder, was not granted leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence, as the application did not meet the necessary criteria. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that applications for special leave to appeal are substantive and have a reasonable chance of success, in order to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.

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.