Holland v Attorney General of NSW

The applicant, Holland, sought judicial review of a decision by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had refused to consider or otherwise deal with his third application for an inquiry into his convictions under Part 7 of the *Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001* (NSW). The Supreme Court had determined that the matters raised in the third application had already been addressed in two prior unsuccessful applications.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the Supreme Court's decision was legally unreasonable. Specifically, it considered whether the Supreme Court had failed to consider relevant medical evidence and whether the judges who determined the previous applications had "invented" new hypotheses concerning the applicant's case.

The Court of Appeal found that the Supreme Court's refusal to consider the third application was not legally unreasonable. It reasoned that the applicant had not presented any new evidence or arguments that had not been considered in the previous applications. The court also noted that the "new hypotheses" referred to by the applicant were not invented by the judges but rather arose from the evidence and submissions presented in the earlier proceedings.

The summons was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.