James Webster v The Queen

Link copied

Case Copied 9 March 2016 1 min read

Contents

On this page

JAMES WEBSTER
v
THE QUEEN
[2016] HCASL 19
P30/2015
P31/2015

In each of these applications, the applicant requires an extension of time in which to seek special leave to appeal to this Court. In each case, an extension of time would be futile as the applicant advances no arguable ground of appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospect of success.
Pursuant to r 41.11.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing each application.

G.A.A. Nettle
9 March 2016 M.M. Gordon

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 James Webster 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: [2016] HCASL 19
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James Webster has applied to the High Court for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for the offence of indecent assault. The appeal was dismissed by the South Australian Court of Appeal. The High Court was required to determine whether the application for an extension of time should be granted. The applicant must demonstrate an arguable ground of appeal in order to obtain an extension of time.

The High Court held that the applicant had not advanced any arguable ground of appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court found that an appeal to the High Court would enjoy no prospect of success. The Court held that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed.

Pursuant to rule 41.11.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing each application. The orders were signed by Justices Nettle and Gordon on 9 March 2016.

Orders